DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the November 14th, 2025 arguments and remarks (“Remarks”).
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 Amendments
In response to the amendments received in the Remarks on November 14th, 2025:
Claims 1 and 4-14 are pending in the current application. Claims 4-5 have been amended. Claim 14 is newly added. Claims 2-3 are cancelled.
Prior Art
Previously cited Natsui JP2013137947 (“Natsui”)
Previously cited Horikawa US PG Publication 2018/0254477 (“Horikawa”)
Previously cited Ryoshi WO2018221664 (“Ryoshi”)
Previously cited Jin US PG Publication 2018/0183046 (“Jin”)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed with the Remarks on November 14th, 2025 with respect to Claims 1 and 4-14 are acknowledged, however, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument that there is no motivation to combine lithium metaborate and lithium niobate in Natsui to arrive at the claimed composite coating is not persuasive.
Natsui discloses in paragraph [0017] wherein the lithium metal oxide comprises at least one selected from a group including lithium metaborate and lithium niobate. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to try each and every possible combination as disclosed by Natsui, including, but not limited to, the combination of lithium metaborate and lithium niobate.
The Supreme Court decided that a claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of known elements was obvious to try. In this regard, the Supreme Court explained that, “[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.” An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of the case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Therefore, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, E.).
Therefore, based solely on this argument, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection of record is maintained.
Applicant’s argument that there would be no reasonable expectation of success of the combination of the lithium niobate of Natsui and the perovskite type oxide of Horikawa based on the unexpected favorable results of the instant application is not persuasive.
In Applicant’s instant disclosure, Examples 1-4 comprise a combination of a ferroelectric material and a boron based oxide. However, the ferroelectric material is always BaTiO3, which fails to satisfy any of the claimed: tungsten bronze type compound, bismuth oxide type layered structure compound, or perovskite structure oxide as defined by Chemical Formula 1. And, therefore, it is not persuasive based on Applicant’s data that the claimed composite coating layer is advantageous as the data presented does not reflect the claimed composite coating layer.
Further, Tables 1 and 2 does not show a significant improvement with the combination of a ferroelectric material and a boron based oxide. See Comparative Example 2, which lacks a ferroelectric material, having a higher charge capacity than that of Example 4, which comprises both a ferroelectric material and a boron based oxide. There is a less than 1 mAh/g improvement in discharge capacity between Example 1, which comprises both a ferroelectric material and a boron based oxide, and Comparative Example 2. There is less than a 1% improvement in efficiency between Example 1 and Comparative Example 2. There is a less than 1 Ω improvement in DCIR between Example 1 and Comparative Example 2. And, there is only a 3.2% improvement in discharge capacity retention rate between Example 2, which comprises both a ferroelectric material and a boron based oxide, and Comparative Example 2. These results do not show a significant improvement between a material that comprises both a ferroelectric material and a boron based oxide and a material that lacks a ferroelectric material. Therefore, based solely on this argument, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection of record is maintained.
In conclusion, Applicant’s arguments found to be not persuasive. The rejection of record is maintained. Any modification to the rejection is as necessitated by the amendment.
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.
Claims 1, 4-7, 9, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Natsui JP2013137947 in view of Horikawa US PG Publication 2018/0254477.
Regarding claims 1 and 12-13, Natsui discloses a lithium secondary battery comprising a positive electrode for a secondary battery ([0016]);
comprising a positive electrode active material, such as LiNi0.8Co0.16Al0.04O2, for a secondary battery ([0016], [0048]);
comprising a [composite] coating layer 11 formed on a surface of secondary lithium composite transition metal (i.e. nickel) oxide particles ([0016], [0040]), wherein the composite coating layer includes the possible combination of a ferroelectric material (i.e. lithium niobate) and a boron-based oxide including boron (i.e. lithium metaborate) ([0017]).
Natsui does not explicitly teach wherein the composite coating layer includes both a ferroelectric material and a boron-based oxide including boron (B).
However, Natsui further teaches that lithium niobate on the surface of particles suppresses side reactions with the electrolyte, resulting in good initial discharge capacity ([0093]) and lithium metaborate on the surface of particles suppresses volumetric expansion, resulting in good cycle characteristics ([0092]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the composite coating layer of Natsui to include both the ferroelectric material lithium niobate and the boron-based oxide lithium metaborate in order to suppress side reactions with the electrolyte, reduce volumetric expansion, and provide for enhanced initial discharge capacity and cycle characteristics, as taught by Natsui.
The skilled artisan would recognize that the lithium niobate of Natsui is a ferroelectric material as described in paragraph [0027] of Applicant’s own PG Publication.
Natsui fails to disclose wherein the ferroelectric material includes one or more selected from the group consisting of a perovskite structure oxide, a tungsten bronze type compound, and a bismuth oxide type layered structure compound.
However, Horikawa discloses a positive electrode material for a lithium ion secondary battery ([0009]) wherein the positive electrode material is covered by a coating on at least a portion of a surface of the positive electrode material wherein the coating includes a ferroelectric substance ([0009]-[0012]). Wherein the ferroelectric substance may include a perovskite type oxide ([0024]).
Horikawa teaches the use of the perovskite type oxide SrTiO3 in an amount of 0.5 mol% of the total positive electrode active material such that the coating exhibits ferroelectricity ([0099], [0127], [0136]-[0137]) and increases the effect of reducing battery resistance ([0021]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the positive electrode active material of Natsui such that the ferroelectric material includes a perovskite type oxide SrTiO3 (which meets the claim limitation of Chemical Formula 1 ATi1-yByO3 when A is Sr and y=0) in the amount of 0.5 mol% per 100 mol% of the positive electrode active material such that the coating exhibits ferroelectricity and increases the effect of reducing battery resistance, as taught by Horikawa.
The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Regarding claim 4, Natsui in view of Horikawa teaches the instantly claimed positive electrode active material according to Claim 1.
Claim 4 puts forth limitations on the ferroelectric material in the instance that said material is a tungsten bronze type compound. However, Claim 4 does not require that the ferroelectric material has such a structure. Therefore, Natsui in view of Horikawa is considered to meet the requisite limitations of Claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, Natsui in view of Horikawa teaches the instantly claimed positive electrode active material according to Claim 1.
Claim 5 puts forth limitations on the ferroelectric material in the instance that said material is a bismuth oxide type layered compound. However, Claim 5 does not require that the ferroelectric material has such a structure. Therefore, Natsui in view of Horikawa is considered to meet the requisite limitations of Claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, Natsui in view of Horikawa teaches the instantly claimed positive electrode active material according to claim 1.
The skilled artisan would recognize that the ferroelectric material (SrTiO3) of Natsui in view of Horikawa, as described in the rejection of Claim 1 above, has a dielectric constant in the range of 102 to 6x103 (which falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of 102 to 105) as described in paragraph [0071] of Applicant’s own PG Publication.
Regarding claim 7, Natsui in view of Horikawa teaches the instantly claimed positive electrode active material according to claim 1.
The skilled artisan would recognize that because Natsui in view of Horikawa discloses SrTiO3 in an amount of 0.5 mol% based on the total moles of the positive electrode active material, Natsui in view of Horikawa discloses that the ferroelectric material SrTiO3 is included in an amount of 5,000 ppm (which falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of 50 ppm to 20,000 ppm) based on the total number of moles of the positive electrode active material.
Further, Natsui in view of Horikawa discloses that every 100 moles of positive electrode active material comprises 91.745 g of SrTiO3 (SrTiO3 has a molecular weight of 183.49 g/mol, so for every 100 mol of active material there are 0.5 mol of SrTiO3 and 183.49 g/mol * 0.5 mol = 91.745 g of SrTiO3).
And, Natsui in view of Horikawa discloses wherein the positive electrode active material comprises LiNi0.8Co0.16Al0.04O2 (molecular weight of 96.398 g/mol) and lithium metaborate (LiBO2 molecular weight of 49.751 g/mol).
While Natsui in view of Horikawa does not explicitly define the amount of the ferroelectric material included in terms of ppm, the skilled artisan would recognize that Natsui in view of Horikawa discloses wherein the ferroelectric material SrTiO3 is included in an amount of 9,776 ppm to 18,196 ppm (which falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of 50 ppm to 20,000 ppm) based on a total weight of the positive electrode active material.
Wherein, SrTiO3 is an amount of 9,776 ppm when the remaining 99.5 mol% of the positive electrode active material is LiNi0.8Co0.16Al0.04O2 (for every 100 mol of active material there are 99.5 mol of LiNi0.8Co0.16Al0.04O2 and 96.398 g/mol * 99.5 mol = 9293.101 g and
91.745
g
S
r
T
i
O
3
91.745
g
S
r
T
i
O
3
+
9293.101
g
L
i
N
i
0.8
C
o
0.16
A
l
0.04
O
2
*
1,000,000
=
9,776
p
p
m
; and
SrTiO3 is an amount of 918,196 ppm when the remaining 99.5 mol% of the positive electrode active material is LiBO2 (for every 100 mol of active material there are 99.5 mol of LiBO2 and 49.751 g/mol * 99.5 mol = 4950.225 g and
91.745
g
S
r
T
i
O
3
91.745
g
S
r
T
i
O
3
+
4950.225
g
L
i
B
O
2
*
1,000,000
=
18,196
p
p
m
.
Regarding claim 9, Natsui in view of Horikawa teaches the instantly claimed positive electrode active material according to claim 1, and as previously described in the rejection of Claim 1, Natsui discloses wherein the lithium [composite] transition metal oxide includes nickel ([0016], [0040]) (which meets the claim limitation of one or more selected from the group consisting of nickel, cobalt, and manganese).
Regarding claim 14, Natsui in view of Horikawa teaches the instantly claimed positive electrode active material according to claim 1, and as previously described in the rejection of Claim 1, Natsui in view of Horikawa discloses wherein the ferroelectric material includes the perovskite structure oxide (Horikawa [0009]-[0012]). -
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Natsui JP2013137947 in view of Horikawa US PG Publication 2018/0254477, as applied to claim 1, in view of Ryoshi WO2018221664 (for purposes of examination, US PG Publication 2020/0251732 is referenced here within).
Regarding claim 8, Natsui in view of Horikawa teaches the instantly claimed positive electrode active material according to claim 1.
Natsui in view of Horikawa fails to disclose wherein the element boron (B) of the boron-based oxide is included in an amount of 50 ppm to 10,000 ppm based on the total weight of the positive electrode active material.
However, Ryoshi discloses a positive electrode active material for a secondary battery (Abstract) wherein the positive electrode active material is coated with lithium metaborate (LiBO2) ([0019]).
Ryoshi teaches that the element boron (B) is present in an amount of 0.011% by mass to 0.6% by mass based on the total positive electrode active material in order to improve discharge capacity and decrease resistance ([0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the positive electrode active material of Natsui in view of Horikawa to further include the element boron (B) of the boron-based oxide lithium metaborate in an amount of 0.011% by mass to 0.6% by mass based on the total mass of the positive electrode active material in order to improve discharge capacity and decrease resistance, as taught by Ryoshi.
The skilled artisan would recognize that since mass% and weight% are directly correlated and 0.011% by mass equates to 110 ppm as well as 0.6% by mass equates to 6,000 ppm, Natsui in view of Horikawa and Ryoshi discloses wherein the element boron (B) of the boron-based oxide is included in an amount of 110 ppm to 6,000 ppm (which falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of 50 ppm to 10,000 ppm) based on the total weight of the positive electrode active material.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Natsui JP2013137947 in view of Horikawa US PG Publication 2018/0254477, as applied to claim 1, in view of Jin US PG Publication 2018/0183046.
Regarding claim 10, Natsui in view of Horikawa teaches the instantly claimed positive electrode active material according to claim 1.
Natsui in view of Horikawa fails to disclose wherein the lithium composite transition metal oxide includes nickel, cobalt, and manganese in an amount of 60 mol% or more relative to all metals except lithium.
However, Jin discloses a positive electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery ([0001]).
Jin teaches a lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide (i.e. Li(NiaCobMnc)O2 wherein 0<a<1, 0<b<1, 0<c<1, and a+b+c=1) with between 0 and 100 mol% nickel relative to all metals except lithium is a commonly used positive electrode active material as it is inexpensive and may be used in high voltage and high capacity applications ([0005]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before to modify the positive electrode active material of Natsui in view of Horikawa such that the lithium composite transition metal oxide includes nickel, cobalt, and manganese as represented by Li(NiaCobMnc)O2, and nickel is included in an amount of between 0 and 100 mol% (which encompasses the claimed range of 60 mol% or more) such that the positive electrode active material may be inexpensive and used in high voltage and high capacity applications, as taught by Jin.
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). See MPEP 2144.05(I).
The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Regarding claim 11, Natsui in view of Horikawa teaches the instantly claimed positive electrode active material according to claim 1.
Natsui in view of Horikawa fails to explicitly state wherein the positive electrode active material has a lithium by-product content of 2.0% by weight or less.
However, Jin discloses a positive electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery ([0001]).
Jin teaches a positive electrode active material with a lithium by-product of 1 wt% or more results in a reduction of output characteristics of the lithium secondary battery ([0065]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the positive electrode active material of Natsui in view of Horikawa to have a lithium by-product of less than 1 wt% (which falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of 2.0% by weight or less) such that there is not a reduction in the output characteristics of the lithium secondary battery, as taught by Jin.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVIA MASON RUGGIERO whose telephone number is (703)756-4652. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7am-6pm EST.
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 on (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.
/O.M.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729