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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/23/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 10/23/2025 have been entered. Claim 1 is amended and Claims 13 and 14 are new.
Support for the amendments can be found in paragraphs 0037 and 0065 of the instant specification and Claim 1 as presented in the claims dated 7/7/2025.
Claims 1-4 and 7-14 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Although the cited references (Morita in view of Ochiai) do not disclose that the positive electrode active material has a pseudo-spinel crystal structure when charged with a voltage higher than or equal to 4.525 V and lower than or equal to 3.65 V, the active materials of cited references (Morita in view of Ochiai) and the claimed invention comprise the same elements in overlapping concentrations and are made using the same or similar steps and would thus be expected to inherently possess the claimed property.
Applicant is invited to provide evidence of any differences between the active material and/or process of forming the active material of modified Morita and the active material of the claimed invention that would result in properties outside the claimed ranges.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references 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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 7-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita (JP 2008010234 A) in view of Ochiai (US 20180013130 A1, cited in 7/7/22 IDS) and as evidenced by Lyu (An Overview on the Advances of LiCoO2 Cathodes for Lithium-Ion Batteries).
Regarding Claims 1, 10-11, and 13-14 Morita teaches a positive electrode active material comprising lithium, cobalt, nickel, aluminum, magnesium, fluorine, and oxygen (0093). Morita does not disclose that a peak of a magnesium or fluorine concentration exists in a region from a surface of the positive electrode active material to a depth of 3 nm toward the center of the active material (Claims 10 and 11), the valency of the Ni or Co or the spin density attributed to a divalent nickel ion, a trivalent nickel ion, a divalent cobalt ion, or a tetravalent cobalt ion, the lattice constants of the a and c axes, the crystal structure of the positive electrode active material when charged with a voltage higher than or equal to 4.525 V and lower than or equal to 4.65 V, the crystal structure of the positive electrode active material at a charge depth of about 0.88 (Claim 13), or the diffraction peaks of the crystal structure (Claim 14).
Ochiai teaches the formation of a region on the surface of an active material that contains magnesium and fluorine (0223, 0228-0232; Fig. 5C). This region results in a peak of a concentration of a representative element (magnesium) (Claim 10) and a peak in a concentration of fluorine (Claim 11) present from the surface of the active material to a depth of 3 nm toward the center (0192, 0195). This region provides the positive electrode active material with excellent cycle characteristics (0223).
Morita and Ochiai are considered analogous to the claimed invention as both relate to the same field of endeavor, namely positive electrode active materials.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the positive electrode active material of Morita with the region taught by Ochiai in order to provide the active material with excellent cycle characteristics. This region results in a peak of a concentration of a representative element (magnesium) and a peak in a concentration of fluorine present from the surface of the active material to a depth of 3 nm toward the center of the active material.
Modified Morita does not disclose the valency of the Ni or Co or the spin density attributed to a divalent nickel ion, a trivalent nickel ion, a divalent cobalt ion, or a tetravalent cobalt ion, the lattice constants of the a and c axes, the crystal structure of the positive electrode active material when charged with a voltage higher than or equal to 4.525 V and lower than or equal to 4.65 V, the crystal structure of the positive electrode active material at a charge depth of about 0.88, or the diffraction peaks of the crystal structure.
However, the positive electrode active materials of both the claimed invention and modified Morita were formed by mixing, grinding, and annealing precursor materials (0080-0082). The positive electrode active material of modified Morita includes magnesium, aluminum, and nickel (0093). Therefore, according to paragraph 0043 of the instant specification, at least some Co would exist as Co2+ or Co4+ (paragraph 0043), and, according to paragraph 0502 of the instant specification, at least some of the Co2+ or Co4+ would exhibit a spin density overlapping the claimed range of 2.0 × 1017 spins/g to 1021 spins/g (paragraph 0502, Fig. 43A).
Additionally, both positive electrode active materials contain nickel, aluminum, magnesium, and fluorine (0093) in similar concentrations. Modified Morita’s active material contains a concentration of nickel with respect to cobalt of 5.6 atomic %, which falls within 0.01 to 10 atomic % (paragraph 0046). The concentration of aluminum with respect to cobalt is about 1.1 atomic %, which falls within 0.01 to 10 atomic % (paragraph 0047). The concentration of magnesium with respect to cobalt is about 1.1 atomic %, which falls within 0.1 to 6 atomic % (paragraph 0048). Thus, the lattice constants of both materials would also be the same as products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.
Similarly, the active material of modified Morita would also be expected to have a pseudo-spinel crystal structure when charged at a high voltage as the material comprises magnesium in an amount overlapping the claimed invention and is also heat treated (0093). According to paragraph 0068 of the instant specification, this would help form the pseudo-spinel structure. Furthermore, LiCoO2 active materials, which are similar to the active material of modified Morita, exhibit a phase transition from layered to disordered spinel, which can be viewed as pseudo-spinel, when cycled at high voltages (Lyu: pg. 6, col. 2, paragraph 2). According to paragraph 0060 and Fig. 4 of the instant specification, this pseudo-spinel crystal structure would be present at a charge depth of approximately 0.88 and, according to paragraph 0089 and Fig. 6 of the instant specification, would exhibit diffraction peaks at 2θ = 19.30±0.20° and 2θ = 45.55±0.10° in an X-ray diffraction pattern.
Overall, the active materials of modified Morita and the claimed invention comprise the same elements in overlapping concentrations and are made using the same or similar steps and therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the spin densities of the recited metals of modified Morita to possess the claimed properties in ranges which meet and/or overlap the claimed ranges, the lattice constants of the a and c axes to possess the claimed properties in ranges which meet and/or overlap the claimed ranges, the crystal structure to comprise a pseudo-spinel structure when charged with a voltage higher than or equal to 4.525 V and lower than or equal to 4.65 V, and the crystal structure to comprise a pseudo-spinel structure with the claimed diffraction peaks at a charge depth of approximately 0.88. See MPEP 2112:
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
“Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Applicant is invited to provide evidence of any differences between the active material and/or process of forming the active material of modified Morita and the active material of the claimed invention that would result in properties outside the claimed ranges.
Regarding Claims 2-4, modified Morita teaches the positive electrode active material of Claim 1. Morita teaches that the chemical formula for the positive electrode active material is Li1.06Co0.90Ni0.05Mn0.05Al0.01Mg0.01O2F0.6 (0093). The concentration of nickel with respect to cobalt (Claim 2) is 0.05/0.90, or about 5.6 atomic %, which falls within the claimed range of 0.01 to 10 atomic %. The concentration of aluminum with respect to cobalt (Claim 3) is 0.01/0.90, or about 1.1 atomic %, which falls within the claimed range of 0.01 to 10 atomic %. The concentration of magnesium with respect to cobalt (Claim 4), is 0.01/0.90, or about 1.1 atomic %, which falls within the claimed range of 0.1 to 6 atomic %.
Regarding Claim 7, modified Morita teaches the positive electrode active material of Claim 1. Morita also teaches a secondary battery (0111) comprising a positive electrode with the positive electrode active material of Claim 1 (0112-0113) and a negative electrode (0114).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Morita teaches the positive electrode active material of Claim 1.
Claim 8 is considered a product-by-process claim. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product (positive electrode active material of Claim 1). The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. 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. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Morita teaches the positive electrode active material of Claim 1 but does not disclose the amount of pseudo-spinel structure. However, as mentioned previously, the active material of modified Morita comprises the same elements (including magnesium) as the active material of the claimed invention in an amount overlapping the claimed invention and is also heat treated (0093) which would help form the pseudo-spinel structure (instant specification: 0068).
As both the active material of modified Morita and the claimed invention comprise the same elements in overlapping concentrations and are made with a step of heat treatment, it would be expected that the amount of pseudo-spinel structure in modified Morita after charging at high voltage would overlap the claimed amount of 50 wt% or more as products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties (See MPEP 2112).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Morita teaches the positive electrode active material of Claim 1. Modified Morita does not disclose that, in the pseudo-spinel crystal structure, approximately 10 atomic% to 20 atomic% lithium with respect to cobalt exists between CoO2 layers, and wherein magnesium exists in a lithium site between the CoO-2 layers.
However, as mentioned previously, the active materials of modified Morita and the claimed invention comprise the same elements in overlapping concentrations and are made using the same or similar steps (see Claim 1 above), which would result in the same pseudo-spinel crystal structure as products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties (See MPEP 2112). According to paragraph 0060 of the instant specification, this pseudo-spinel structure means that approximately 10 atomic% to 20 atomic% lithium with respect to cobalt exists between the CoO2 layers and a slight amount of magnesium exists in the lithium sites between the CoO2 layers.
Applicant is invited to provide evidence of any differences between the active material and/or process of forming the active material of modified Morita and the active material of the claimed invention that would result in properties outside the claimed ranges.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZIHENG LU whose telephone number is (703)756-1077. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 - 5 ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicholas Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/ZIHENG LU/Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752