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 .
Claim Status
Claim 5 has been cancelled and claims 1, 10, 11, 12,and 14 have been amended. Claims 1-2, 4, 6-13, and 15-20 are currently pending, however claims 11-13 and 15 have been withdrawn from consideration.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6-8, 16-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizawa (U.S. 20150221933) in view of Kang et al. (U.S. 20170317342).
With respect to claims 1-2 and 4-8, Mizawa discloses a positive electrode active material, comprising secondary particles formed by agglomeration of primary particles (Fig. 1, [0027])), wherein the primary particles comprise a lithium transition metal oxide ([0026]), and a transition metal site of the lithium transition metal oxide comprises nickel and a doping element (Ma – niobium (Nb)) ([abstract], [0024]).
Mizawa does not disclose that a Young's modulus E of the primary particles satisfies 175 GPa <E< 220 GPa or that the true doping concentration (Φ) of the positive electrode active material satisfies 2300 μg/cm3 ≤ Φ ≤50000 μg/cm3. However, applicant is reminded that 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). Claim 11, which has been withdrawn from consideration in this action, details the method for preparing the positive electrode material, including precursor materials and manufacturing parameters. The comparison between the composition and process of the prior art vs. the claimed invention is as follows:
Precursor materials
Instant application:
positive electrode active material - in the form of an oxide, hydroxide, or carbonate that contains Ni, and optionally Co and Mn (claim 11)
lithium source (claim 11) - lithium carbonate (Li2CO3) ([0115])
doping precursor (claim 11) - Nb.sub.2O.sub.5 ([0022])
Mizawa:
positive electrode active material - transition metal hydroxide or transition metal oxide particles ([0048]), specifically Ni.sub.0.5CO.sub.0.2Mn.sub.0.3(OH).sub.2 ([0073])
lithium source - Li.sub.2CO.sub.3 ([0073])
doping precursor - Nb.sub.2O.sub.5 ([0074]) ; oxidation state: +5 (claim 4)
Process
Instant application
Sintering @ 600 to 1000 ℃ (claim 11)
Sintering in air atmosphere (claim 13)
Mizawa:
Sintering (via calcination) at 400 to 1000 ℃ ([0032],[0057])
Sintering in air atmosphere ([0074])
As it is shown above that the material structure and process of forming the positive electrode active material are substantially identical, it follows that the resultant products would inherently possess the same properties. Therefore, it is obvious that the primary particles of Mizawa would have a Young’s modulus E satisfying 175 GPa ≤ E ≤ 220 GPa as limited by claim 1, or 180 GPa ≤ E ≤ 210 GPa; and optionally, 190 GPa ≤ E ≤ 205 GPa, as limited by claim 2, as well as the true doping concentration (Φ) of the positive electrode active material satisfies 2300 μg/cm3 ≤ Φ ≤50000 μg/cm3.
Similarly, with regards to the relative deviation of a local mass concentration of the doping element in the secondary particles, as well as claims 6, 7, 8, and 9, Mizawa does not disclose the relative deviation of a local mass concentration of the doping element in the secondary particles, the true density of the positive electrode active material, the true doping concentration of the positive electrode active material, or the deviation of a mass concentration of the doping element in the positive electrode active material with respect to an average mass concentration of the doping element in the secondary particles. However, similar to the Young’s modulus E, these are examples of measurable properties of the positive active material. As proven above, these properties are obviously inherent based on the prior art and instant application having substantially identical materials and processes.
Mizawa does not disclose that the doping element is one or more of Si, V, Cr, Ge, Se, Ru, Rh, Pd, Sb, Te, and Ce, but does disclose the doping element is Niobium, which was part of applicant’s preferred elements until the amendment.
Kang discloses an active material for a positive electrode including a lithium transition metal oxide comprising nickel ([0056]) and teaches that a doping element may be present in the form of vanadium (vanadium oxide as the precursor) or niobium ([0070]). Kang further teaches that the doping element can help improve structural stability of the active material ([0033]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was effectively filed that vanadium could substitute for niobium as taught by Kang in the active material disclosed by Mizawa in order to improve the structural stability of the active material.
Note: for purpose of examination, any amendments to claim 11 to further limit the process as claimed have not been addressed here, as claim 11 has been withdrawn from consideration and therefore holds no patentable weight. Arguments pertaining to substantially identical processes to prove inherent properties will be addressed in the examiner’s “Response to Arguments” section below.
With respect to claim 16, Mizawa discloses a positive electrode plate (positive electrode) ([0081]), comprising a positive electrode current collector and a positive electrode active substance layer (slurry) disposed on the positive electrode current collector ([0081]), wherein the positive electrode active substance layer comprises the positive electrode active material according to claim 1 (see above rejection of claim 1).
With respect to claim 17, Mizawa discloses a lithium-ion secondary battery ([abstract]), comprising the positive electrode plate according to claim 16 (see above rejection of claim 16).
With respect to claim 20, Mizawa discloses an apparatus (vehicle) ([0002]) comprising at least one secondary battery according to claim 17 (see above rejection of claim 17).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizawa in view of Kang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Suhara et al. (U.S. 20050220700).
With respect to claim 9, Mizawa discloses the positive electrode active material (see rejection of claim 1), but does not disclose one of the following: the volume average particle size, the specific surface area, the tap density of the positive electrode active material, or the compacted density of the positive electrode active material.
Suhara discloses a lithium transition metal oxide active material formed by an agglomeration of primary particles for a positive electrode active material ([0028]) and teaches the resultant volume average particle size of the positive electrode active material is 5 to 12 micrometers ([0028]), thus being encompassed by the claimed range of 5 to 20 micrometers. Suhara further teaches that this range ensures a dense electrode layer without comprising large current discharge properties ([0028]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to ensure the volume average particle diameter of the positive electrode active material disclosed by Mizawa was in the range taught by Suhara in order to produce a positive electrode with a dense electrode layer without comprising large current discharge properties.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizawa in view of Kang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoshida et al. (U.S. 20160322627).
With respect to claim 10, Mizawa discloses a positive electrode active material comprising a Li, Ni, Nb, O compound ([0026]), and a general formula for a lithium transition metal oxide comprising Ni, Co, and Mn as transitional metals present and then doped with Nb (Table 1), but does not disclose what the resultant lithium transition metal oxide formula would be once it includes the Nb.
Yoshida discloses a positive electrode active material ([0011]) and teaches the formula for the active material is Li.sub.aNi.sub.1-x-yCo.sub.xMn.sub.yM.sub.zO.sub.2 wherein 0.95≦a≦1.2, 0.10≦x≦0.35, 0≦y≦0.35, 0<z≦0.05, M is at least one element selected from a group consisting of Nb ([0018]), thus overlapping the first claimed chemical formula in claim 10. Yoshida further teaches that this active material has good low-temperature output power characteristics and a high discharge capacity ([0011]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to ensure the Li-Ni-Nb-O compound disclosed by Mizawa was in the formula taught by Yoshida in order to provide an active material that as good low-temperature output power characteristics and a high discharge capacity.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizawa in view of Kang as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (U.S. 20190288285).
With respect to claims 18-19, Mizawa discloses the lithium secondary battery according to claim 17 (see above rejection of claim 17), but does not disclose that the lithium-ion secondary battery is part of a battery module or battery pack.
Kim discloses a positive electrode active material containing a transition metal oxide with nickel and a doping agent (tungsten) for a positive electrode in a lithium secondary battery ([abstract], 0096]) and teaches the lithium secondary battery can be part of a battery module, which is then part of a battery pack ([0096]). Kim further teaches that the resultant structure of the battery pack can then be used to provide power to various apparatuses, such as power tools, EVs, and power storage systems ([0097]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was effectively filed that the lithium-ion secondary battery disclosed by Mizawa could be used as part of a battery module and battery pack as taught by Kim in order to provide power to various apparatuses such as power tools, EVs, and power storage systems.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant’s assertion that Mizawa does not disclose the newly amended list of doping elements was considered, however after further search and consideration, prior art (Kang et al.) was found that reads on the new limitation.
Applicant's arguments filed 09/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant further argues against the inherency argument with claim 1, which was responded to in the non-final office action of 07/10/2025. For purposes of compact prosecution, the response to said arguments will not be included here and can be found in the non-final action. However, applicant further argued that because another material is added through attachment after the niobium and lithium transition metal oxide particles are sintered, the process of the prior no longer is substantially the same as the claimed invention. However, the purpose of the addition of the second compound according to Mizawa is to attach to the surface of the lithium transition metal oxide particles to reduce the reaction resistance at the surface ([0022]). This step has no bearing on the actual formation of the lithium transition metal oxide particles beyond improving a property. The formation of the particles themselves is still substantially identical to the process disclosed by the applicant. Therefore, the inherency argument is maintained.
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 JORDAN E BERRESFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-0641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm 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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (572)272-1330. 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.
/J.E.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/Maria Laios/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727