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
In response to the amendment received December 24, 2025:
Claims 1-7 and 9-16 are pending. Claim 8 has been cancelled as per applicant’s request.
The core of the previous rejection is maintained with slight changes made in light of the amendment in view of Kaneda et al. (WO 2018/123951A) and Imaizumi et al. (US 2013/0189581). All changes to the rejection are 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.
Claim 1, 4, 7 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2018/0233739) in view of Kaneda et al. (WO 2018/123951A) and Imaizumi et al. (US 2013/0189581). The U.S version of Kaneda et al. (US2020/0388841) is used as the English translation and is referenced below.
Regarding Claim 1, Regarding Claim 1, Park et al. teaches a positive electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery (Para. [0012]) (i.e. a positive electrode active material for a lithium ion secondary battery) having a crystal structure (Para. [0035]) wherein the positive electrode active material is a lithium composite metal oxide particle is a secondary particle (i.e. configured by secondary particles with a plurality of aggregated primary particles) (Para. [0021], [0096]) wherein the positive electrode active material is Li1.05(Ni-0.6Mn0.2Co0.2)0.935Nb0.005Ti0.01O2 (Para. [0143]) (i.e. wherein the lithium-nickel composite oxide contains lithium, nickel, manganese, titanium, niobium and an element M1 that is Co) , and an amount of substance ratio of the elements Li:Ni:Mn:M1:Ti:Nb would be satisfied as a = 1.05, (1-x1-y1-b-c) = 0.561, x1 = 0.209, y1 = 0.215, b = 0.010 and c = 0.005, (b+c) = (0.010 + 0.005) = 0.015 which satisfies ≤ 0.06, and b > c. (see Table 2, wherein niobium replaces tungsten). Accordingly, the positive electrode active material having a hexagonal layered crystal structure is presumed to be inherent as the composition of Park et al. is identical to that of the instant claim. 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." "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). 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. See MPEP 2112.
Park et al. does not teach the niobium is segregated at a grain boundary between the primary particles and a titanium concentration at the grain boundary between the primary particles
However, Kaneda et al. teaches a positive electrode active material for a secondary battery (Para. [0027]) which facilitates movement of lithium ions (Para. [0063]) (i.e. a positive electrode active material for a lithium ion secondary battery) wherein a positive electrode active material has the general formula LidNi1-a-b-cMnaMbNbcO2+γ (i.e. comprising a lithium-nickel composite oxide) containing a secondary particle formed of a plurality of flocculated primary particles (i.e. configured by secondary particles with a plurality of aggregated primary particles) wherein M is Ti (i.e. wherein the lithium-nickel composite oxide contains Li, Ni, Mn, Ti and Nb), wherein 1≤d≤1.20 (within with the claimed range for a) (Para. [0048], [0054]), (1-a-b-c) is 0.3≤(1-a-b-c)≤0.95 (overlapping with the claimed range for 1-x1-y1-b-c), a is 0.03≤a≤0.35 (i.e. the same range of x1 claimed) (Para. [0050]), b is 0≤b≤0.60 (overlapping with the claimed b range) and c is 0.02≤c≤0.04 (overlapping with the claimed c range), and thus, y1 = 0, and overlapping with (b+c)≤0.06 and b>c, wherein niobium concentration is high on the grain boundaries of the primary particles (Para. [0062]) (i.e. wherein the niobium is segregated at a grain boundary between the primary particles).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Park et al. to incorporate the teaching of niobium segregated at a grain boundary of primary particles as taught by Kaneda et al., as such a modification would increase the durability of the secondary battery (Para. [0061]).
Park et al. does not teach a titanium concentration at the grain boundary between the primary particles, as determined by point analysis using STEM-EDX, with respect to a titanium concentration inside the primary particles of the lithium-nickel composite oxide, is less than 1.3 times.
However, Imaizumi et al. teaches a cathode active material for a secondary battery comprising a lithium-nickel composite oxide (Para. [0054]) wherein a titanium-enriched layer is formed on a grain boundary between primary particles (Para. [0053]) (i.e. wherein a titanium concentration at the grain boundary between the primary particles) using a scanning transmission electron microscope (Para. [0242]) wherein the titanium-enriched layer is formed by a substitution amount of titanium for nickel of 0.1 at% and not more than 3 at% (0.001≤z≤0.3) (Para. [0060]), z being the atomic ratio of titanium (Para. [0054]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Park et al. to incorporate the teaching of titanium-enriched layer is formed on a grain boundary between primary particles as taught by Imaizumi et al., as it would provide high capacity, stability and output characteristics (Para. [0033]). Thus, the natural result of the combination would at the very least be overlapping with the claimed range of the titanium concentration at the grain boundary between the primary particles with respect to titanium concentration inside the primary particles is less than 1.3 times as Park et al. teaches a titanium concentration inside of 0.01 (atomic concentration) (Para. [0143]) and substituting 0.1 at% (0.001) would provide a ratio of 0.011/0.01 or a ratio of 1.1. 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).” See MPEP §2144.05(I). Regarding the limitation of “as determined by point analysis using STEM-EDX”, the method of measuring the titanium concentration does not affect the underlying property itself, which is a product of the structure of the positive electrode active material and any positive electrode active material, if measured with the same process, will have the same titanium concentration ratio.
Regarding Claim 4, Park et al. as modified by Kaneda et al. and Imaizumi et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Park et al. as modified above teaches an identical composition of the positive electrode active material of claim 1 as explained above. Accordingly, the positive electrode active material of modified Park et al. would either (a) be expected to satisfy a volume resistivity as determined by powder resistivity measurement when compressed to 3.5 g/cm3 of 1.0x103 Ω*cm or more and 1.0x105 Ω*cm or less, or (b) differences in the volume resistivity set forth in the instant claim, would be slight differences in ranges that would be obvious. With respect to (a): The reasons regarding expectedness are that the composition is identical in composition that of the instant claim, therefore it is expected that the positive electrode active material of modified Park et al. would satisfy these conditions. 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. "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." See MPEP 2112.01. With respect to (b): If it is shown that such characteristics are not present, then any differences (regarding the volume resistivity) would be small and obvious. 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).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 7, Park et al. as modified by Kaneda et al. and Imaizumi et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Park et al. does not teach a niobium concentration at the grain boundary between the primary particle with respect to a niobium concentration inside the primary particles of the lithium-nickel composite oxide is 1.3 times or more.
However, Kaneda et al. further teaches in the primary particles of a positive electrode active material has the general formula LidNi1-a-b-cMnaMbNbcO2+γ (i.e. primary particles of the lithium-nickel composite oxide) niobium concentration is high on the grain boundaries of the primary particles, such that the niobium concentration in the grain boundaries normally exceeds three times the niobium concentration within the primary particles (Para. [0060]) (i.e. a niobium concentration at the grain boundary between the primary particle with respect to a niobium concentration inside the primary particles of the lithium-nickel composite oxide is 1.3 times or more).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Park et al. to incorporate the teaching of niobium segregated at a grain boundary of primary particles as taught by Kaneda et al., as such a modification would increase the durability of the secondary battery (Para. [0061]).
Regarding the limitation of “as determined by point analysis using STEM-EDX”, the method of measuring the titanium concentration does not affect the underlying property itself, which is a product of the structure of the positive electrode active material and any positive electrode active material, if measured with the same process, will have the same titanium concentration ratio.
Regarding Claim 10, Park et al. as modified by Kaneda et al. and Imaizumi et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Park et al. further teaches an average particle size D50 measured by laser diffraction scattering wherein the average particle size is 5 micrometers to 18 micrometers (Para. [0062]) (i.e. a volume average particle size is overlapping with the claimed range of 8 micrometers or more and 20 micrometers or less). 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).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 11, Park et al. as modified by Kaneda et al. and Imaizumi et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Park et al. further teaches the positive electrode active material is Li1.05(Ni-0.6Mn0.2Co0.2)0.935Nb0.005Ti0.01O2 (Para. [0143]) (i.e. c = 0.005, within the range of 0.002 ≤ c ≤ 0.03).
Regarding Claim 12, Park et al. as modified by Kaneda et al. and Imaizumi et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Park et al. further teaches a lithium secondary battery includes a positive electrode containing the positive electrode active material for a lithium ion secondary battery according to claim 1, a negative electrode, and an electrolyte (Para. [0112]) wherein the electrolyte may be an organic solvent such as EMC, DMC or DEC (Para. [0121]) (i.e. and a non-aqueous electrolyte).
Claims 2-3, 5-6 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gunji et al. (US 2017/0358799) in view of Kaneda et al. (WO 2018/123951A). The U.S version of Kaneda et al. is used as the English translation and is referenced below.
Regarding Claim 2, Gunji et al. teaches a positive electrode active material for a lithium ion secondary battery (i.e. a positive electrode active material for a lithium ion secondary battery) (Para. [0040]) wherein the particles are secondary particles obtained by binding a plurality of primary particles (Para. [0052]) (i.e. configured by secondary particles with a plurality of aggregated primary particles) having a layered structure (Para. [0045]) wherein the formula of the lithium complex compound which forms the positive electrode active material is Li1+a-NibMncCodTieMfO2+α wherein M may be Nb, -0.1≤a≤0.2, 0.7<b≤0.9, 0≤c≤0.3, 0≤d<0.3, 0<e≤0.25, 0≤f<0.3, b+c+d+e+f=1 and -0.2≤α≤0.2 (Para. [0041]) (i.e. comprising a lithium-nickel composite oxide wherein the lithium nickel composite oxide contains Li, Ni, Mn, Ti, Nb and M2 which is Co and an amount of a substance ratio of the respective elements overlaps with the claimed ranges as the formula of Gunji et al. may be e.g. LiNi0.9Mn0.0425Co0.0425Ti0.01Nb0.005O2, reading on the instant claim). Accordingly, the positive electrode active material having a hexagonal layered crystal structure is presumed to be inherent as the composition of Gunji et al. is substantially identical to that of the instant claim. 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 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).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Gunji et al. does not teach the niobium is segregated at a grain boundary between the primary particles.
However, Kaneda et al. teaches a positive electrode active material for a secondary battery (Para. [0027]) which facilitates movement of lithium ions (Para. [0063]) (i.e. a positive electrode active material for a lithium ion secondary battery) wherein a positive electrode active material has the general formula LidNi1-a-b-cMnaMbNbcO2+γ (i.e. comprising a lithium-nickel composite oxide) containing a secondary particle formed of a plurality of flocculated primary particles (i.e. configured by secondary particles with a plurality of aggregated primary particles) wherein M is Ti (i.e. wherein the lithium-nickel composite oxide contains Li, Ni, Mn, Ti and Nb) (Para. [0048]), wherein niobium concentration is high on the grain boundaries of the primary particles (Para. [0062]) (i.e. wherein the niobium is segregated at a grain boundary between the primary particles).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gunji et al. to incorporate the teaching of niobium segregated at a grain boundary of primary particles as taught by Kaneda et al., as such a modification would increase the durability of the secondary battery (Para. [0061]).
Regarding Claim 3, Gunji et al. teaches a positive electrode active material for a lithium ion secondary battery (i.e. a positive electrode active material for a lithium ion secondary battery) (Para. [0040]) wherein the particles are secondary particles obtained by binding a plurality of primary particles (Para. [0052]) (i.e. configured by secondary particles with a plurality of aggregated primary particles) having a layered structure (Para. [0045]) wherein the formula of the lithium complex compound which forms the positive electrode active material is Li1+a-NibMncCodTieMfO2+α wherein M may be Nb and Al, -0.1≤a≤0.2, 0.7<b≤0.9, 0≤c≤0.3, 0≤d<0.3, 0<e≤0.25, 0≤f<0.3, b+c+d+e+f=1 and -0.2≤α≤0.2 (Para. [0041]) (i.e. comprising a lithium-nickel composite oxide wherein the lithium nickel composite oxide contains Li, Ni, Co, Al, Ti, Nb and M3 which is Mn and an amount of a substance ratio of the respective elements overlaps with the claimed ranges as the formula of Gunji et al. may be e.g. LiNi0.895Mn0.0425Co0.0425Ti0.01Nb0.005Al0.005O2, -reading on the instant claim). Accordingly, the positive electrode active material having a hexagonal layered crystal structure is presumed to be inherent as the composition of Gunji et al. is substantially identical to that of the instant claim. 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 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).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Gunji et al. does not teach the niobium is segregated at a grain boundary between the primary particles.
However, Kaneda et al. teaches a positive electrode active material for a secondary battery (Para. [0027]) which facilitates movement of lithium ions (Para. [0063]) (i.e. a positive electrode active material for a lithium ion secondary battery) wherein a positive electrode active material has the general formula LidNi1-a-b-cMnaMbNbcO2+γ (i.e. comprising a lithium-nickel composite oxide) containing a secondary particle formed of a plurality of flocculated primary particles (i.e. configured by secondary particles with a plurality of aggregated primary particles) wherein M is Ti, Co and Al (i.e. wherein the lithium-nickel composite oxide contains Li, Ni, Mn, Co, Al, Ti and Nb) (Para. [0048]), wherein niobium concentration is high on the grain boundaries of the primary particles (Para. [0062]) (i.e. wherein the niobium is segregated at a grain boundary between the primary particles).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gunji et al. to incorporate the teaching of niobium segregated at a grain boundary of primary particles as taught by Kaneda et al., as such a modification would increase the durability of the secondary battery (Para. [0061]).
Regarding Claim 5, Gunji et al. as modified by Kaneda et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 2 as explained above.
Gunji et al. as modified by Kaneda et al. teaches a substantially identical composition of the positive electrode active material of claim 2 as explained above. Accordingly, the positive electrode active material of modified Gunji et al. would either (a) be expected to satisfy a volume resistivity as determined by powder resistivity measurement when compressed to 3.5 g/cm3 of 1.0x102 Ω*cm or more and 1.0x105 Ω*cm or less, or (b) differences in the volume resistivity set forth in the instant claim, would be slight differences in ranges that would be obvious. With respect to (a): The reasons regarding expectedness are that the composition is substantially identical in composition that of the instant claim, therefore it is expected that the positive electrode active material of modified Gunji et al. would satisfy these conditions. 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. "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." See MPEP 2112.01. With respect to (b): If it is shown that such characteristics are not present, then any differences (regarding the volume resistivity) would be small and obvious. 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).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 6, Gunji et al. as modified by Kaneda et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 3 as explained above.
Gunji et al. as modified by Kaneda et al. teaches a substantially identical composition of the positive electrode active material of claim 3 as explained above. Accordingly, the positive electrode active material of modified Gunji et al. would either (a) be expected to satisfy a volume resistivity as determined by powder resistivity measurement when compressed to 3.5 g/cm3 of 5.0x102 Ω*cm or more and 1.0x105 Ω*cm or less, or (b) differences in the volume resistivity set forth in the instant claim, would be slight differences in ranges that would be obvious. With respect to (a): The reasons regarding expectedness are that the composition is substantially identical in composition that of the instant claim, therefore it is expected that the positive electrode active material of modified Gunji et al. would satisfy these conditions. 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. "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." See MPEP 2112.01. With respect to (b): If it is shown that such characteristics are not present, then any differences (regarding the volume resistivity) would be small and obvious. 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).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 13, Gunji et al. as modified by Kaneda et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 2 as explained above.
Gunji et al. does not teach a niobium concentration at the grain boundary between the primary particle with respect to a niobium concentration inside the primary particles of the lithium-nickel composite oxide is 1.3 times or more.
However, Kaneda et al. further teaches in the primary particles of a positive electrode active material has the general formula LidNi1-a-b-cMnaMbNbcO2+γ (i.e. primary particles of the lithium-nickel composite oxide) niobium concentration is high on the grain boundaries of the primary particles, such that the niobium concentration in the grain boundaries normally exceeds three times the niobium concentration within the primary particles (Para. [0060]) (i.e. a niobium concentration at the grain boundary between the primary particle with respect to a niobium concentration inside the primary particles of the lithium-nickel composite oxide is 1.3 times or more).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gunji et al. to incorporate the teaching of niobium segregated at a grain boundary of primary particles as taught by Kaneda et al., as such a modification would increase the durability of the secondary battery (Para. [0061]).
Regarding Claim 14, Gunji et al. as modified by Kaneda et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 3 as explained above.
Gunji et al. does not teach a niobium concentration at the grain boundary between the primary particle with respect to a niobium concentration inside the primary particles of the lithium-nickel composite oxide is 1.3 times or more.
However, Kaneda et al. further teaches in the primary particles of a positive electrode active material has the general formula LidNi1-a-b-cMnaMbNbcO2+γ (i.e. primary particles of the lithium-nickel composite oxide) niobium concentration is high on the grain boundaries of the primary particles, such that the niobium concentration in the grain boundaries normally exceeds three times the niobium concentration within the primary particles (Para. [0060]) (i.e. a niobium concentration at the grain boundary between the primary particle with respect to a niobium concentration inside the primary particles of the lithium-nickel composite oxide is 1.3 times or more).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gunji et al. to incorporate the teaching of niobium segregated at a grain boundary of primary particles as taught by Kaneda et al., as such a modification would increase the durability of the secondary battery (Para. [0061]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2018/0233739) in view of Kaneda et al. (WO 2018/123951A) and Imaizumi et al. (US 2013/0189581) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Koshika et al. (WO2018/079809). The U.S. version of Koshika et al. (US 2020/0052295) is used as the English machine translation and is referenced below.
Regarding Claim 9, Park et al. as modified by Kaneda et al. and Imaizumi et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Park et al. does not teach wherein [(D90-D10)/Mv] indicating a particle size distribution width calculated by D90, D10 and a volume average particle size (Mv) in a particle size distribution by a laser diffraction scattering method is 0.80 or more and 1.20 or less.
However, Koshika et al. teaches a positive electrode active material containing a secondary particle of mutually flocculated primary particles (i.e. a secondary particles with a plurality of aggregated primary particles) wherein the positive electrode active material is a lithium nickel manganese oxide which may contain Ti and Nb (Para. [0020]) wherein a [(D90-D10)/Mv] is at 0.60 measured by laser diffraction scattering (Para. [0021]) and preferably up to 1.2 (Para. [0108]) (i.e. a range overlapping with 0.80 or more and 1.20 or less as claimed).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Park et al. to incorporate the teaching of Koshika et al., as such a particle diameter variation index (i.e. particle size distribution) provides a positive electrode active material with high energy density and inhibits excessive mixing of fine or coarse particles in the positive electrode active material (Para. [0108]). 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).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gunji et al. (US 2017/0358799) in view of Kaneda et al. (WO 2018/123951A) as applied to claims 2 and 3 above, and further in view of Imaizumi et al. (US 2013/0189581).
Regarding Claim 15, Gunji et al. as modified by Kaneda et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 2 as explained above.
Gunji et al. does not teach a niobium concentration at the grain boundary between the primary particle with respect to a niobium concentration inside the primary particles of the lithium-nickel composite oxide is 1.3 times or more.
However, Kaneda et al. further teaches in the primary particles of a positive electrode active material has the general formula LidNi1-a-b-cMnaMbNbcO2+γ (i.e. primary particles of the lithium-nickel composite oxide) niobium concentration is high on the grain boundaries of the primary particles, such that the niobium concentration in the grain boundaries normally exceeds three times the niobium concentration within the primary particles (Para. [0060]) (i.e. a niobium concentration at the grain boundary between the primary particle with respect to a niobium concentration inside the primary particles of the lithium-nickel composite oxide is 1.3 times or more).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gunji et al. to incorporate the teaching of niobium segregated at a grain boundary of primary particles as taught by Kaneda et al., as such a modification would increase the durability of the secondary battery (Para. [0061]).
Gunji et al. does not teach a titanium concentration at the grain boundary between the primary particles, as determined by point analysis using STEM-EDX, with respect to a titanium concentration inside the primary particles of the lithium-nickel composite oxide, is less than 1.3 times.
However, Imaizumi et al. teaches a cathode active material for a secondary battery comprising a lithium-nickel composite oxide (Para. [0054]) wherein a titanium-enriched layer is formed on a grain boundary between primary particles (Para. [0053]) (i.e. wherein a titanium concentration at the grain boundary between the primary particles) using a scanning transmission electron microscope (Para. [0242]) wherein the titanium-enriched layer is formed by a substitution amount of titanium for nickel of 0.1 at% and not more than 3 at% (0.001≤z≤0.3) (Para. [0060]), z being the atomic ratio of titanium (Para. [0054]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gunji et al. to incorporate the teaching of titanium-enriched layer is formed on a grain boundary between primary particles as taught by Imaizumi et al., as it would provide high capacity, stability and output characteristics (Para. [0033]). Thus, the natural result of the combination would at the very least be overlapping with the claimed range of the titanium concentration at the grain boundary between the primary particles with respect to titanium concentration inside the primary particles is less than 1.3 times as Gunji et al. teaches 0<e≤0.25 (i.e. titanium concentration may be 0.01) and substituting 0.1 at% (0.001) would provide a ratio of 0.011/0.01 or a ratio of 1.1. 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).” See MPEP §2144.05(I). Regarding the limitation of “as determined by point analysis using STEM-EDX”, the method of measuring the titanium concentration does not affect the underlying property itself, which is a product of the structure of the positive electrode active material and any positive electrode active material, if measured with the same process, will have the same titanium concentration ratio.
Regarding Claim 16, Gunji et al. as modified by Kaneda et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 3 as explained above.
Gunji et al. does not teach a niobium concentration at the grain boundary between the primary particle with respect to a niobium concentration inside the primary particles of the lithium-nickel composite oxide is 1.3 times or more.
However, Kaneda et al. further teaches in the primary particles of a positive electrode active material has the general formula LidNi1-a-b-cMnaMbNbcO2+γ (i.e. primary particles of the lithium-nickel composite oxide) niobium concentration is high on the grain boundaries of the primary particles, such that the niobium concentration in the grain boundaries normally exceeds three times the niobium concentration within the primary particles (Para. [0060]) (i.e. a niobium concentration at the grain boundary between the primary particle with respect to a niobium concentration inside the primary particles of the lithium-nickel composite oxide is 1.3 times or more).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gunji et al. to incorporate the teaching of niobium segregated at a grain boundary of primary particles as taught by Kaneda et al., as such a modification would increase the durability of the secondary battery (Para. [0061]).
Gunji et al. does not teach a titanium concentration at the grain boundary between the primary particles, as determined by point analysis using STEM-EDX, with respect to a titanium concentration inside the primary particles of the lithium-nickel composite oxide, is less than 1.3 times.
However, Imaizumi et al. teaches a cathode active material for a secondary battery comprising a lithium-nickel composite oxide (Para. [0054]) wherein a titanium-enriched layer is formed on a grain boundary between primary particles (Para. [0053]) (i.e. wherein a titanium concentration at the grain boundary between the primary particles) using a scanning transmission electron microscope (Para. [0242]) wherein the titanium-enriched layer is formed by a substitution amount of titanium for nickel of 0.1 at% and not more than 3 at% (0.001≤z≤0.3) (Para. [0060]), z being the atomic ratio of titanium (Para. [0054]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gunji et al. to incorporate the teaching of titanium-enriched layer is formed on a grain boundary between primary particles as taught by Imaizumi et al., as it would provide high capacity, stability and output characteristics (Para. [0033]). Thus, the natural result of the combination would at the very least be overlapping with the claimed range of the titanium concentration at the grain boundary between the primary particles with respect to titanium concentration inside the primary particles is less than 1.3 times as Gunji et al. teaches 0<e≤0.25 (i.e. titanium concentration may be 0.01) and substituting 0.1 at% (0.001) would provide a ratio of 0.011/0.01 or a ratio of 1.1. 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).” See MPEP §2144.05(I). Regarding the limitation of “as determined by point analysis using STEM-EDX”, the method of measuring the titanium concentration does not affect the underlying property itself, which is a product of the structure of the positive electrode active material and any positive electrode active material, if measured with the same process, will have the same titanium concentration ratio.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed December 24, 2025 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the combination references being used in the current rejection in light of the amendment.
Applicant’s arguments are drawn to a previous prior art combination and thus, are not persuasive in light of the newly cited prior art.
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 ARMINDO CARVALHO JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-5292. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30a.m.-5p.m..
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.
/ARMINDO CARVALHO JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729