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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/5/26 has been entered.
Claim 21 is added. Claims 5 and 7 were previously canceled. Claim 1-4, 6, and 8-21 are rejected 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 1-4, 6, and 8-21 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, 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.
With regard to claims 2 and 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
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 15-20, 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 2/5/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on page 7 of the Remarks, concerning the claimed M/(Ni+X) ratio, the examiner is not convinced. As is noted above in the rejection, MPEP 2044.05 II A states: "[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 (emphasis added by the examiner)."
Applicant also states that “the doctrine only applies when the prior art recognizes the parameter and its effect.” As is clearly stated in the Rejection, Oh teaches that the atomic ratio of B in the active material (i.e. the parameter) is result effective for suppressing side reactions while also preventing reduction of electrochemical properties (i.e. the effect).
As to the ratio specifically claimed, M/(Ni+X), the examiner notes the skilled artisan will easily understand that this ratio is based on the components of elements within the active material. The examiner also notes that the skilled artisan will also easily understand that the teachings of Oh, which apply to the ratio of B within the active material, is also based on the components of elements within the active material. While the specifics of the denominator in the ratios may be different, the general conditions are the same: that the amount of B in the active material is controlled relative to the components of the active material. Furthermore, the skilled artisan will understand that different denominators will result in different values for the ratio, but the general conditions, i.e. controlling the amount of B, are the same. It is a simple matter of ratios, and selecting different denominators does not change the effect of optimizing the amount of B in the material.
As to Applicant’s statement in the middle of page 7 that “merely adjusting boron in a broad sense does not predictable yield the claimed effect (emphasis by Applicant),” this is not convincing to overcome the teachings of Oh. First, the claims as filed to include a limitation to directly tie any “claimed effect” to the claimed ratio. Applicant is reminded that arguments that amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b). Further, the examiner notes that the prior art does not need to recognize the same effect (which the examiner maintains is not claimed) as the invention, per MPEP 2145 II. Therefore, the arguments to the “claimed effect” and, in the following paragraphs, to the alleged need for Oh to provide “guidance on how to set the ratio to achieve the specific coating structure” are not convincing.
As to Applicant’s arguments on page 8 concerning the obviousness of the claimed BET specific surface area, the examiner is not convinced.
At the outset, it argued that the state of the active material (uncoated lithium composite metal oxide powders of Toma vs. the claimed powder) is an instrumental factor in selecting BET specific surface area. However, this is merely the statements of Applicant’s attorney and is not supported by evidence. Applicant is reminded that an assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP 2145 I).
Additionally, Applicant is reminded that a person having ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton, and is able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle (MPEP 2141.03 I). Therefore, references do not need to provide specific steps and every single detail, as suggested by Applicant, in order for the skilled artisan to use the teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on pages 8-9 concerning the D50 cumulative volume particle size, the examiner reiterates the statements above concerning the combination of references. Additionally, to the statement about “undue experimentation,” the examiner notes that this rebuttal argument generally applies to prior art where the operability of the prior art is in question (MPEP 2121.01). As to whether the capability of tuning the D50 cumulative volume particle size is within the ordinary level of skill in the art, Applicant is invited to provide evidence that this is not within the ordinary level of skill in the art. The examiner finds that a secondary reference does not need to specifically teach the skilled artisan to do so per MPEP 2141.03 I as discussed above.
Conclusion
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