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 Arguments
Applicant's amendments and corresponding arguments filed 2/26/2026 have been fully considered. The 35 USC 112(b) Rejections of Claims 1 and 3-7 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments to Claims 1 and 3. Applicant has also amended Claim 1, which changes the amorphous phase composition from comprising the substance of Formula 2 to “being a substance having the composition represented by the following Formula 2” (see lines 7-8 of Claim 1). The Examiner’s search has been updated accordingly.
Applicant emphasizes the importance of the amorphous layer on the cathode active material. Examiner agrees the examples effectively show a heat treatment at 400° C resulting in an amorphous layer (Ex. 2), and a heat treatment of 700° C resulting in a crystalline layer (Comp Ex. 2). This relationship was established in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention. See Toyama et al., JP 2015130273 A for a similar teaching regarding the effect of a heat treatment temperature on an amorphous/crystalline structure of a cathode active material coating ([0033, 0051-0052], see examples).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the Lee and Tatsumisago references have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Lee or Tatsumisago for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities: The ranges required by
Claim 4 (“1 to 50 µm”) and Claim 6 (“0.01 to 1 µm”) do not express the units of measurement for each endpoint. Although the prior art teaches the claimed diameter and thicknesses in more than one unit of measure (nanometer (nm) or micron (µm), Examiner notes the instant specification does not disclose any nanosized particles or reason to believe the beginning of each range is expressed in nanometers. Thus, the claims are not indefinite.
Please amend the range for Claim 4 to read 1 µm to 50 µm. Similarly, please amend the range for Claim 6 to read 0.01 µm to 1 µm.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 3, and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyama et al., JP 2015130273 A (new reference), and further in view of Allie et al., US 20170179472 A1 (cited in Pertinent Prior Art section in last action).
Regarding Claim 1, Toyama discloses a cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery (positive electrode active material: solid solution particles coated in a lithium-ion conductive glass [0015]) comprising:
a core containing lithium composite metal oxide (solid solution particles, a lithium-containing metal composite oxide [0016-0025]) and
a coating layer disposed on the core (lithium-ion conductive glass, covers the surface of the solid
solution particles [0027-0038]) and having an amorphous phase (glass, amorphous [0033, 0079, 0135]).
While Toyama discloses the glass comprises lithium oxide (glass compositions preferably include Li2O in oxide-based glasses [0028]), and the glass may also comprise tungsten ([0029]), Toyama does not disclose the glass has the tungsten oxide-lithium oxide composition of Formula 2 (XWxOy–YLi2O, X+Y=1, 0.25≤x/y≤0.5).
Allie teaches a XWxOy–YLi2O composition can be used as a coating on a lithium composite metal oxide (66.67WO3–33.3Li2O [0049-0056], Table 2; For claimed Formula 2, X=0.667, Y=0.333, x/y=0.333). Allie teaches the 66.67WO3–33.3Li2O composition has a low melting point, serves as a binder to form a dense cathode layer and conductive pathways, and enables the cathode layer to be formed at a lower temperature range (between 400° C and 700° C [0044-0047]).
Examiner notes Toyama prefers a lithium-ion conductive glass coating comprising Li2O and/or Li2O-metal oxide alloys having a lithium ion conductivity of 1 × 10 −10 S/cm or more ([0029-0030], see [0132] for preferred examples having ionic conductivities from 5x10-9 S/cm to 2x10-5 S/cm). Allie’s 66.67WO3–33.3Li2O glass coating is a Li2O-metal oxide alloy having an ionic conductivity within Toyama’s preferred range (1.17x10-5 S/cm, Allie Table 2). Additionally, Toyama discloses forming the glass coating with a heat treatment “preferably conducted above the glass transition temperature and below the crystallization temperature,” and discloses this range is between 200° C and 600° C ([0051], higher temperatures result in crystallization [0033]). Allie teaches the glass transition temperature of 66.67WO3–33.3Li2O is compatible with Toyama’s preferred range (Tg=340° C, Table 2).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the 66.67WO3–33.3Li2O composition of Allie as the amorphous coating mixture in the cathode active material of Toyama, in order to form a dense cathode layer and conductive pathways, and enable the cathode layer to be formed at a lower temperature range. One would have a reasonable expectation of success by making such substitution, as Allie teaches the 66.67WO3–33.3Li2O composition possesses numerous characteristics preferred by Toyama.
The prior art can be modified or combined to reject claims as prima facie obvious as long as there is a reasonable expectation of success. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (see MPEP § 2143.02).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Toyama discloses all limitations as set forth above. Regarding the claimed Formula 3 (XWO3–YLi2O, X+Y=1), modified Toyama discloses the coating layer comprises 66.67WO3–33.3Li2O (Allie, Table 2), wherein X=0.667, Y=0.333, and X+Y=1.
Regarding Claim 5, modified Toyama discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Toyama
discloses the content of lithium-ion conductive glass is preferably 0.5% by mass or more and 5.0% by mass or less, based on 100% by mass of the total mass of the positive electrode active material (Toyama, [0034]). Additionally, Modified Toyama discloses if the glass content is 0.5% by mass or more, the coating will be able to have a sufficient film thickness to improve the charge-discharge cycle characteristics, but a glass content exceeding 5.0% by mass will negatively affect energy density ([0034]). Therefore, the glass of modified Toyama (66.67WO3–33.3Li2O), at an amount of 0.5% by mass or more and 5.0% by mass or less, would overlap with the claimed weight content ranges.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the weight percentage of the coating layer on the core particle, as modified Toyama discloses a range of 0.5 mass % to 5 mass % will charge-discharge cycle characteristics will improve , but a glass content exceeding 5.0% by mass will negatively affect energy density enough coating is to improve , but too much of the coating will negatively impact battery capacity and output.
Regarding Claim 6, modified Toyama discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Toyama discloses the coating layer has a thickness of 0.01 µm to 0.1 µm (Toyama, 0.03 µm).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Toyama discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Toyama discloses the coating layer is coated on 40% to 100% of a surface area of the core (Toyama, 50% to 100% of the surface area of the solid solution particles is covered with lithium-ion conductive glass [0034]).
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) [MPEP 2144.05].
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Toyama as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al., KR 20160026402 A (cited in last action).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Toyama discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Toyama discloses the average size of the core particle (solid solution particles) is preferably between 50 nm and 500 nm for primary particles (Toyama, [0045]). While modified Toyama discloses the solid solution particles may be secondary particles (Toyama, [0045]), Modified Toyama does not disclose the average size of the secondary particles.
Lee teaches lithium composite oxide primary particles within modified Toyama’s range can be agglomerated into secondary particles having a size of 3 µm to 20 µm ([0040]). Lee also teaches the secondary particles are suitable for coating with a surface modification layer comprising lithium and tungsten, and heat treated within a range of 200 ° C to 600° C ([0041-0048, 0058]).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the core particle of modified Toyama be a secondary particle, with an average diameter within the claimed range of 1 µm to 50 µm, as Lee teaches a cathode active material secondary particle having a similar size range is suitable for coating and heat treatment.
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 BETHANY C GARCIA whose telephone number is (571)272-2475. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 0800 - 1730 MT.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at 303-297-4684. 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.
/BETHANY C GARCIA/Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights