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
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed 5/20/26. Claims 1 and 21 are amended. Claims 2, 4, 5, 7, and 11-17 are canceled. Claims 22-24 are added. Claims 1, 3, 6, 8-10, and 18-24 are rejected finally for the reasons provided below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 8-10, and 18-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. (US 2016/0013476) in view of Toma et al. (US 2019/0379038) and Shin et al. (US 2018/0287135).
Regarding claim 1, Oh teaches a lithium composite metal oxide powder having a layered structure ([0051]),
the lithium composite metal powder containing at least Li, Ni, and element X, specifically Ni, Co, and Al, Zr, Zn, Ti, Mg, Ga([0051]-[0052]);
the lithium composite metal powder further comprising element M, i.e. elemental B ([0060]).
Oh teaches that the lithium composite metal powder comprises core particles and a coating substance that coats surfaces of the core particles, where the coating substance contains a compound produced by a reaction of the element M and lithium ([0043]-[0049]).
With further regard to claim 1 and with regard to claim 3, Oh teaches the claimed formula wherein w is analogous to claim n, and z, y, z, and v are analogous to claim p and the Ni subscript, and that the compositional formula may include additional stoichiometric Li in an amount of 0≤a<0.3 ([0060]-[0061]). It is noted that the claimed ranges at least partially overlap the ranges of Oh. Absent any additional and more specific information, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05
With further regard to claim 1 and with regard to claims 22-24, Oh teaches that the relative amount of element M, i.e. B, is based on a ratio with the other elements in the lithium oxide ([0060]-[0061] and claim 18 of Oh), and that the relative amount of element M, i.e. B, in the total amount of the active material is result effective for suppressing side reactions while also preventing reduction of electrochemical properties ([0048]).
It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to determine the optimum amount of element B relative to the other elements in the lithium oxide, i.e. w relative to a, x, y, z, and v, in order to suppress side reactions while also prevent reduction of electrochemical properties. It has been held that where 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. MPEP 2144.05 II A
Further regarding claim 1 and with regard to claims 4 and 11, Oh is silent on weight reduction percentage. However, the examiner notes that the claimed weight reduction percentages are inherent properties of the lithium composite oxide that are determined by testing after the claimed lithium composite oxide is formed. Additionally, the published specification explains that both weight reduction percentages are controlled by the formation method of the lithium composite oxide, specifically heat treatment of the composite oxide at 200°C to 500°C for 1hr to 10 hr ([0184]-[0185]).
Oh teaches heat treatment of the lithium composite oxide at 130°C to 300°C for 3hr to 10hr, and that the heat treatment parameters are result effective to provide sufficient melting and uniform coating of the coating substance ([0035]-[0036]). The examiner notes that the disclosed heat treatment overlaps the heat treatment of Oh. Since the structure and method recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims and the disclosed method, the claimed properties are presumed to be inherent. MPEP 2112.01 I
With further regard to claim 1 and with regard to claim 12, Oh teaches the lithium composite metal oxide of claims 1 and 2 but is silent on the BET specific surface area and average particle diameter of the oxide.
Toma teaches a lithium composite metal oxide having a specific surface area of 1.5 to 3.0 m2/g, and further teaches that the specific surface area range is result effective for providing sufficient reaction area with the electrolytic solution while maintaining thermal stability ([0179]).
It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to form the material of Oh with the BET of Toma for the reasons discussed above.
Further regarding claim 1 and with regard to claim 14, Oh teaches the lithium composite metal oxide of claims 1 and 2 but is silent on the D50 cumulative volume particle size.
Shin teaches a lithium composite metal oxide having a D50 cumulative volume particle size of 2µm to 20µm, and further teaches that the D50 cumulative volume particle size range is result effective for improving output characteristics as well as providing structural stability ([0173]).
It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to form the material of Oh with the average particle size in the claimed range such as suggested by Shin in order to improve output characteristics as well as provide structural stability.
As for claims 6 and 13, Toma teaches a lithium composite metal oxide having an average particle size of 3µm to 10µm, and further teaches that the average particle size range is result effective for increasing capacity while maintaining output ([0173]).
It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to form the material of Oh with the average particle size of Toma for the reasons discussed above.
Regarding claims 8-10 and 18-20, Oh teaches the above discussed lithium composite oxide as the active material in the positive electrode of a lithium secondary battery ([0017]-[0018]).
Regarding claim 21, Oh further teaches the inclusion of element A in the active material, wherein A may be phosphorous or sulfur, and wherein the amount of A is 0≤c≤0.2 ([0051]-[0052], [0060]-[0061]). As discussed above, it has been held that where 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. MPEP 2144.05 II A
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/20/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, on pages 7-9, Applicant argues that the claimed lithium composite metal oxide powder having the compositional formula of amended claim 1 indicates “the transition-metal framework forming the layered oxide structure” and further argues that the relative ratio of the active material as a whole does not define or control the amount of element M relative to the transition metal framework.
It appears that Applicant is under the belief that the lithium composite metal oxide powder as claimed requires that atoms of the element M are included integrally within the crystal structure (“framework”) of the lithium oxide. The examiner strongly disagrees.
Applicant is invited to review the instant published specification, wherein it is disclosed that the lithium composite metal oxide powder is made by first “obtaining the raw material compound” ([0169]-[0178]) which does not include element M, and then “adding the compound containing element M” ([0179]-[0188]) by which steps a coating substance that is a lithium-boron-oxygen compound is formed on the surfaces of the core particles (which are the raw material compound particles per [0115]), not as an integral component of the framework itself.
In other instances in the published specification, it is made clear that the boron is included on the core particles (“confirmed that the coating layer contained compounds produced by the reaction of the element M and lithium” at, e.g., [0384], [0394], [0406], etc.) and the examiner is unable to find any teachings in the published specification that element M is “an integral component of the transition-metal composite oxide framework itself.” In fact, the instant specification does not use the words “integral” or “framework.”
Turning to Oh, which the examiner notes has been cited in all of the Office Actions in the prosecution of this application, Oh teaches a method by which a raw material (“lithium composite metal oxide”) is coated with a coating substance containing a compound produced by reaction of the element M and lithium (“a structurally stable lithium boron oxide”) by approximately the same method as disclosed and cited above (see, e.g., [0030], [0035]-[0037]). Applicant is directed specifically to the top of p. 4 of the Non-Final Rejection of 2/20/26, where it is explained that the material of Oh is made by substantially the same method of the instant invention.
The examiner requests that Applicant provide evidence of the manner in which the element M is “an integral component of the transition-metal framework” if Applicant is going to continue to argue the concepts present on pages 8-9.
For the reasons discussed at length previously, the examiner maintains that the general conditions of the claims are met, and that the skilled artisan would be motivated to optimize of amount B in the lithium composite metal oxide as suggested by Oh, therefore obviating the claimed material.
As to the arguments on page 9 concerning the thermogravimetric weight reduction characteristics, the examiner maintains that the material of claim 1 is obvious for the reasons provided above, and that the material therefore inherently has the claimed characteristics per MPEP 2112.01 I. The examiner finds that Applicant has not shown that the claimed material is structurally different from the material of Oh. Further, to the arguments at the bottom of p. 9, Applicant is reminded that MPEP 2112.01 I states that the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the claimed characteristics. The examiner finds that Applicant has not provided evidence, but has merely presented arguments and therefore has not met the burden to overcome the inherency rejection per MPEP 2145 I, MPEP 2112 V
Regarding the arguments, on page 10, that the Office has not established motivation or expectation of success, the examiner finds that Oh anticipates the claimed compound for the reasons discussed at length above. It does not appear that the limitations which are found to be obvious, i.e. BET specific surface area and D50 particle size, have any bearing on the weight reduction percentage measurements. Therefore, any arguments concerning obviousness of the compound are not convincing to overcome the anticipation.
As to claim 21, the examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to add P or S to the compound of Oh for the reasons provided in Oh. The examiner further maintains that the compositional formula (I) of claim 1 does not have any bearing on the actual “transition-metal composite metal oxide framework” and therefore the arguments to the substitution of P or S for any element are not convincing to overcome the finding that the general conditions of the claim are met. Further, a range analysis would suggest that the performance of the material of Oh would be the same or similar to the claimed material barring any evidence to the contrary per MPEP 2144.05 I
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 ALIX ECHELMEYER EGGERDING whose telephone number is (571)272-1101. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am - 4:30pm.
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.
/ALIX E EGGERDING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights