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 .
Summary
The Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments received August 14, 2026 have been entered into the file. Currently, claim 1 is amended; claims 2-4, 6-7, and 9-10 are cancelled; claim 12 is new; and claim 12 is withdrawn; resulting in claims 1, 5, 8, and 11 pending for examination.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 12 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1, 5, 8, and 11, drawn to a lithium secondary battery, classified in H01M10/052.
II. Claim 12, drawn to a method of manufacturing a cathode active material, classified in H01M4/139.
Inventions I and II are related as process of making and product made. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In the instant case, the product as claimed may be made by another process, such as obtaining a lithium composite oxide particle by a separate process and calcining at a different temperature and wet-mixing the lithium composite oxide particles with TiO2.
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 12 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claims 5 and 8, the limitation in line 6 of claim 5 and line 3 of claim 8 require that the molar ratio of nickel among nickel, cobalt, and manganese in the lithium composite oxide is 0.8 or more, however, claim 1 requires that the molar ratio of nickel is 0.83 or more. Thus, the scope of claims 5 and 8 is broader than the scope of the claim from which they depend.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 5, 8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du, et al. (EP 3429000 A1) in view of Noh, et al. (US 2019/0393489 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Du teaches a lithium ion battery including a positive electrode with a modified positive electrode active material (¶ [0033], Ln. 1-3). The modified positive electrode active material includes a positive electrode active material substrate selected from the group consisting of lithium cobalt oxide, lithium iron phosphate, lithium manganese oxide, lithium-nickel-manganese-cobalt-based oxide ternary material, lithium-nickel-cobalt-aluminum-based oxide ternary material (¶ [0019], Ln. 1-4). The modified positive electrode active material also includes a first oxide layer coated on the outer surface of the positive electrode active material substrate (outer coating layer) and a second oxide layer coated on the surface of the first oxide layer (¶ [0014], Ln. 1-7). In Example 6, the positive electrode active material substrate is a lithium-nickel-manganese-cobalt-based oxide ternary material LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 and the first oxide layer is formed by adding 0.50 g of TiO2 (¶ [0062], Ln. 1-3). The example teaches including 100 g of positive electrode active material substrate (¶ [0062], Ln. 1), making the content of TiO2 particles 5,000 ppm based on a total weight of the lithium composite oxide particle. Du teaches that a layer of titanium oxide is coated on the surface of the lithium-nickel-manganese-cobalt-based oxide ternary material (¶ [0062], Ln. 6-7). Du teaches that in preparing the lithium ion battery, the positive electrode, a separator, and the negative electrode are stacked in that order and wound (anode facing the cathode) (¶ [0048], Ln. 1-3).
While it is acknowledged that the outer reversible lithium-titanium oxide selectively present in a specified charging region, such that TiO2 particles are included as independent particles at a voltage less than 4.1 V, the reversible lithium-titanium oxide is only generated in the charging region of 4.1-4.3 V by conversion of lithium residues remaining on a surface of the lithium composite oxide particle to form a reversible coating layer on the surface of the lithium composite oxide particle, the reversible lithium-titanium oxide is not generated at a voltage lower than 4.1 V, the reversible lithium titanium oxide is represented by LixTiO2 (0<x≤0.6), and an integral peak intensity ratio of cathode active material including the reversible lithium-titanium oxide and lithium composite oxide particle to cathode active material not including a titanium source of 1.82 to 1.9 are not explicitly recited by Du, the reference teaches the claimed composition, including the claimed lithium composite oxide and titanium oxide particles of the cathode active material. Therefore, the claimed properties, i.e., a reversible lithium-titanium oxide being selectively present in a charging region of 4.1 V or more and less than 4.3 V, TiO2 particles included as independent particles at a voltage less than 4.1 V, the reversible lithium-titanium oxide only generated in the charging region of 4.1-4.3 V by conversion of lithium residues remaining on a surface of the lithium composite oxide particle to form a reversible coating layer on the surface of the lithium composite oxide particle, the reversible lithium-titanium oxide not generated at a voltage lower than 4.1 V, the reversible lithium titanium oxide represented by LixTiO2 (0<x≤0.6), and an integral peak intensity ratio determined by sXAS of cathode active material including the reversible lithium-titanium oxide and lithium composite oxide particle to cathode active material not including a titanium source of 1.82 to 1.9 would be implicitly achieved by a cathode active material with the same lithium composite oxide particle composition and titanium oxide particle coating. The instant specification has not provided adequate teachings that the claimed property is only obtainable with the claimed material.
As evidence that the claimed properties are inherent to the cathode active material taught by Du, the reference teaches forming the cathode active material by a substantially similar process using the same materials, which the instant specification recognizes as essential to achieving the claimed reversible lithium-titanium oxide selectively present in a charging region of 4.1 V or more and less than 4.3 V. In particular, in paragraph [0063] of the instant specification, the reversible phase of the lithium-titanium oxide is said to be formed by including a content of TiO2 particles from about 1,000 ppm to about 5,000 ppm. In paragraph [00116] of the instant specification, the lithium composite oxide particles (LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2) are mixed with 1,000 ppm of TiO2 particles to form the cathode active material of example 1.
With respect to the content of TiO2 particles, Du teaches that 5,000 ppm of TiO2 particles are mixed with the lithium-nickel-manganese-cobalt-based oxide ternary material in Example 6 (¶ [0062], Ln. 1-3). Thus, the TiO2 particles are included at an amount within the range required to form the reversible lithium-titanium oxide of claim 1.
With respect to the process of combining the lithium composite oxide particles and TiO2 particles, Du teaches combining a lithium-nickel-manganese-cobalt-based oxide ternary material (LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2) with TiO2 particles in order to form a titanium oxide coating layer on the surface of the lithium-nickel-manganese-cobalt-based oxide ternary material (¶ [0062] Ln. 1-7). Thus, the TiO2 is included as individual particles in the first oxide layer.
With respect to the presence of a reversible lithium-titanium oxide, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that within a voltage of 4.1-4.3 V, lithium titanium oxide will be formed between the TiO2 in the coating layer and the migrating lithium ions of the lithium-nickel-manganese-cobalt-based oxide ternary material. Therefore, in the claimed charging region, a reversible lithium titanium oxide will be generated. Depending on the state of charge of the battery, the TiO2 particles in the surface layer will be lithiated, partially lithiated, or not lithiated. Further, based on the partial lithiation of the TiO2 particles, the lithium-titanium oxide generated at a voltage of 4.1-4.3 V may be represented by LixTiO2 (0<x≤0.6). In this case, the lithium-titanium oxide generated is considered the claimed outer reversible coating layer and consists of the lithium-titanium oxide.
Thus, the cathode active material taught by Du teaches all of the essential features to achieving the claimed reversible lithium-titanium oxide selectively present in a specified charging region, such that TiO2 particles are included as independent particles at a voltage less than 4.1 V, the reversible lithium-titanium oxide is only generated in the charging region of 4.1-4.3 V by conversion of lithium residues remaining on a surface of the lithium composite oxide particle to form a reversible coating layer on the surface of the lithium composite oxide particle, the reversible lithium-titanium oxide is not generated at a voltage lower than 4.1 V, the reversible lithium titanium oxide is represented by LixTiO2 (0<x≤0.6), and an integral peak intensity ratio of cathode active material including the reversible lithium-titanium oxide and lithium composite oxide particle to cathode active material not including a titanium source of 1.82 to 1.9. Further, the reversible lithium titanium oxide layer formed is located on the outer surface of the lithium-nickel-manganese-cobalt based oxide ternary material particle and consists of lithium-titanium oxide.
Du teaches that the amount of titanium included in the first oxide layer is 0.01% to 2% based on the mass of the positive electrode active material substrate, further teaching that excessive amounts lead to the formation of an excessively thick coating, affecting the electrochemical performance of the battery (¶ [0017], Ln. 1-6). Du does not expressly teach that the thickness of the reversible coating layer is from 90 nm to 200 nm.
Noh teaches a lithium secondary battery (¶ [0002] Ln. 2-3) comprising a cathode comprising a cathode active material (¶ [0009] Ln. 2), wherein the cathode active material comprises a lithium composite oxide particle (¶ [0011] Ln. 3) having a nickel molar ratio of 0.8 or more among elements other than lithium and oxygen (¶ [0011] Formula 1; [0065] Ln. 4-6), and TiO2 particles introduced as part of a coating layer (¶ [0083], Ln. 4-6). Noh teaches that that the thickness of the oxide coating layer formed on the surface of the lithium metal oxide particle is 90-200 nm (¶ [0074], Ln. 1-7). Noh teaches that when the oxide coating is too thickly formed, the electrical characteristics of the cathode active material are reduced (¶ [0101], Ln. 6-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the titanium oxide coating layer of Du to be 90-200 nm thick based on the teachings of Noh. Given the teaching of Du that the content of titanium is limited so as not to form an excessively thick coating, one would be motivated to apply the teachings of Noh, limiting the thickness to 90-200 nm. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use this thickness in order to avoid reducing the electrical characteristics of the active material.
Du teaches examples including a lithium-nickel-manganese-cobalt based oxide ternary material represented by LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 (Examples 1-7). Du does not expressly teach an example of a lithium-nickel-manganese-cobalt based oxide having a nickel molar ratio of 0.83 or more along elements other than lithium and oxygen.
Noh teaches that the preferred nickel content in the lithium composite oxide is 0.8-0.88 (¶ [0065], Ln. 1-6). Noh specifically teaches that high nickel content is associated with better capacity and output, teachings that if the content is excessively increased, the life-span of the battery may be reduced (¶ [0061], Ln. 1-8). Noh teaches a range of 0.7-0.95, and a narrower range of 0.8-0.88 in order to produce a battery with high-density energy characteristics (¶ [0065], Ln. 1-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the lithium-nickel-manganese-cobalt based oxide of Du to include a higher nickel content, including contents between 0.83 and 0.88, based on the teachings of Noh. As Noh teaches a similar lithium composite oxide particle having a high nickel molar ratio and including TiO2 in the coating layer, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to look to the teachings of Noh for the nickel content in the lithium-nickel-manganese-cobalt based oxide of Du. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use a higher nickel content in the lithium-nickel-manganese-cobalt based oxide of Du in order to increase the capacity and output of the battery. One would be motivated to include a content between 0.83 and 0.88 in order to produce a battery with high-density energy characteristics.
Regarding claims 5 and 8, Du in view of Noh teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above, including a lithium-nickel-manganese-cobalt-based oxide ternary material including nickel at a content between 0.83 and 0.88 along with Co and Mn, meeting the limitations of claimed Chemical Formula 1 wherein M is selected from Co and Mn, α=1, β=2, x is 0.83-0.88, and x+y=1.
Regarding claim 11, Du in view of Noh teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. While it is acknowledged that the integral peak intensity is not explicitly recited by Du, the reference teaches the claimed composition, including the claimed lithium composite oxide and outer reversible lithium titanium oxide. Therefore, the claimed property, i.e., the integral peak intensity in the range of 460 eV to 470 eV of the cathode active material including the reversible lithium-titanium oxide being 10 to 14, would be implicitly achieved by a cathode active material with the same lithium composite oxide particle composition and reversible lithium titanium oxide. The instant specification has not provided adequate teachings that the claimed property is only obtainable with the claimed material. Should the Applicant disagree, it is requested that evidence is provided to support their position. See also MPEP 2112, 2112.01, and analogous burden of proof in MPEP 2113.
As evidence that the claimed property is inherent to the cathode active material taught by Du, the reference teaches combining a lithium-nickel-manganese-cobalt-based oxide ternary material and TiO2 (¶ [0062], Ln. 1-3), which the instant specification recognizes as essential to achieving the claimed peak intensity ratio and peak intensity. In particular, in paragraph [00123] of the instant specification, the sXAS analysis is said to confirm the presence of the lithium-titanium oxide. With respect the presence of the lithium-titanium oxide, Du teaches the presence of a titanium oxide coating on the surface of the lithium-nickel-manganese-cobalt-based oxide ternary material of Example 6 (¶ [0062] Ln. 6-7). As stated above, as lithium ions are migrating, at a voltage within 4.1-4.3 V, lithium titanium oxide will be formed in the TiO2 coating layer. Therefore, in the claimed charging region, a reversible lithium titanium oxide will be generated. Depending on the state of charge of the battery, the TiO2 particles in the surface layer will be lithiated, partially lithiated, or not lithiated. Thus, the cathode active material taught by Du teaches the essential features to achieving the claimed peak intensity in the range of 460 eV to 470 eV of the cathode active material including the reversible lithium-titanium oxide of 10 to 14.
Claims 1, 5, 8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Procter (US 2022/0181611 A1) in view of Yokoe (US 2022/0238866 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Procter teaches a lithium ion secondary battery including a wound electrode body with a positive electrode sheet and negative electrode sheet, wherein the positive electrode sheet includes a positive electrode active material layer including a positive electrode active material (¶ [0040], Ln. 1-4, ¶ [0041], Ln. 1-8). The positive electrode active material is a lithium composite oxide, specifically a lithium transition metal composite oxide including at least one of Ni, Co, and Mn (¶ [0018], Ln. 1-6, ¶ [0019], Ln. 1-4). Procter teaches a lithium nickel type oxide represented by the formula Li1-xNiyCozMn(1-y-z)MαO2-βQ β, wherein 0.1<y<0.9, overlapping the claimed range of 0.83 or more (lithium composite oxide particle having a nickel molar ratio of 0.83 or more) (¶ [0020], Ln. 1-9, ¶ [0021]-[0022]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05(I)). Procter teaches a coating on the surface of the positive electrode active material including brookite type TiO2 (¶ [0025], Ln. 1-4). Procter teaches that brookite type TiO2 forms a complex with Li ions, speeding up the extraction and insertion of Li ions and reducing reaction resistance (¶ [0027], Ln. 1-14). The positive electrode composite material is formed by charging the lithium nickel type oxide and brookite type TiO2 into a mechanochemical device and mechanochemically processing (¶ [0035], Ln. 1-5). Procter teaches that the coverage of the coating must be large enough to produce the reaction resistance effect but small enough that the TiO2 does not act as an insulator. Procter teaches a preferred coverage range of 0.4-2.5%, wherein coverage is based on the elemental ratio of Ti to metals excluding Li in the positive electrode composite, overlapping the claimed range of 5,000 ppm TiO2 (¶ [0032]-[0033]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
While it is acknowledged that the outer reversible lithium-titanium oxide selectively present in a specified charging region, such that TiO2 particles are included as independent particles at a voltage less than 4.1 V, the reversible lithium-titanium oxide is only generated in the charging region of 4.1-4.3 V by conversion of lithium residues remaining on a surface of the lithium composite oxide particle to form a reversible coating layer on the surface of the lithium composite oxide particle, the reversible lithium-titanium oxide is not generated at a voltage lower than 4.1 V, the reversible lithium titanium oxide is represented by LixTiO2 (0<x≤0.6), and an integral peak intensity ratio of cathode active material including the reversible lithium-titanium oxide and lithium composite oxide particle to cathode active material not including a titanium source of 1.82 to 1.9 are not explicitly recited by Procter, the reference teaches the claimed composition, including the claimed lithium composite oxide and titanium oxide particles of the cathode active material. Therefore, the claimed properties, i.e., a reversible lithium-titanium oxide being selectively present in a charging region of 4.1 V or more and less than 4.3 V, TiO2 particles included as independent particles at a voltage less than 4.1 V, the reversible lithium-titanium oxide only generated in the charging region of 4.1-4.3 V by conversion of lithium residues remaining on a surface of the lithium composite oxide particle to form a reversible coating layer on the surface of the lithium composite oxide particle, the reversible lithium-titanium oxide not generated at a voltage lower than 4.1 V, the reversible lithium titanium oxide represented by LixTiO2 (0<x≤0.6), and an integral peak intensity ratio determined by sXAS of cathode active material including the reversible lithium-titanium oxide and lithium composite oxide particle to cathode active material not including a titanium source of 1.82 to 1.9 would be implicitly achieved by a cathode active material with the same lithium composite oxide particle composition and titanium oxide particle coating. The instant specification has not provided adequate teachings that the claimed property is only obtainable with the claimed material.
As evidence that the claimed properties are inherent to the positive electrode active material taught by Procter, the reference teaches forming the positive electrode active material by a substantially similar process using the same materials, which the instant specification recognizes as essential to achieving the claimed reversible lithium-titanium oxide selectively present in a charging region of 4.1 V or more and less than 4.3 V. In particular, paragraphs [0077]-[0078] of the instant specification teach that the process of mixing lithium composite oxide particles and TiO2 particles includes dry mixing the two while stirring. Paragraphs [0062]-[0063] indicate that the Ti in the coating prevents an increase in resistance and the content of TiO2 coating is enough to sufficiently form the coating without reducing the cathode activity of the lithium composite oxide particle.
With respect to the process of combining the lithium composite oxide particles and TiO2 particles, Procter teaches that the positive electrode composite material is formed by charging the lithium nickel type oxide and brookite type TiO2 into a mechanochemical device and mechanochemically processing (¶ [0035], Ln. 1-5)
With respect to the content of TiO2 particles, Procter teaches that the coverage of the coating must be large enough to produce the reaction resistance effect but small enough that the TiO2 does not act as an insulator. Procter teaches a preferred coverage range of 0.4-2.5%, wherein coverage is based on the elemental ratio of Ti to metals excluding Li in the positive electrode composite (¶ [0032]-[0033]).
With respect to the presence of a reversible lithium-titanium oxide consisting of lithium-titanium oxide, Procter teaches that brookite type TiO2 forms a complex with Li ions, speeding up the extraction and insertion of Li ions and reducing reaction resistance (¶ [0027], Ln. 1-14). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that within a voltage of 4.1-4.3 V, lithium titanium oxide will be formed between the TiO2 in the coating layer and the migrating lithium ions of the lithium nickel type oxide. Therefore, in the claimed charging region, a reversible lithium titanium oxide will be generated. Based on the lithiation of the TiO2 particles, the lithium-titanium oxide generated at a voltage of 4.1-4.3 V may be represented by LixTiO2 (0<x≤0.6). In this case, the lithium-titanium oxide generated is considered the claimed outer reversible coating layer and consists of the lithium-titanium oxide.
Thus, the positive electrode active material taught by Procter teaches all of the essential features to achieving the claimed reversible lithium-titanium oxide selectively present in a specified charging region, such that TiO2 particles are included as independent particles at a voltage less than 4.1 V, the reversible lithium-titanium oxide is only generated in the charging region of 4.1-4.3 V by conversion of lithium residues remaining on a surface of the lithium composite oxide particle to form a reversible coating layer on the surface of the lithium composite oxide particle, the reversible lithium-titanium oxide is not generated at a voltage lower than 4.1 V, the reversible lithium titanium oxide is represented by LixTiO2 (0<x≤0.6), and an integral peak intensity ratio of cathode active material including the reversible lithium-titanium oxide and lithium composite oxide particle to cathode active material not including a titanium source of 1.82 to 1.9. Further, the reversible lithium titanium oxide layer formed is located on the outer surface of the lithium nickel type oxide particle and consists of lithium-titanium oxide.
Procter does not expressly teach that the thickness of the TiO2 coating is 90-200 nm.
Yokoe teaches a positive electrode active material including a core portion and a coat portion, wherein the coat portion includes brookite type TiO2 and rutile type TiO2 (¶ [0041], Ln. 4-9). Yokoe teaches that the core portion is a lithium transition metal composite oxide containing at least one of Ni, Co, and Mn, such as a lithium nickel composite oxide (¶ [0043], Ln. 1-10). The coat portion includes TiO2 and has a thickness of 0.1-500 nm, or more preferably 1-200 nm (¶ [0058], Ln. 1-4). Yokoe teaches that the amount of Ti included is preferably in a range of 0.5-4.0 parts based on an amount of metallic element excluding an alkali metal in the core portion in order to improve output characteristics and cycle characteristics (¶ [0055], Ln. 1-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the thickness of the TiO2 coating of Procter to be within 1-200 nm, such as 100 nm, based on the teachings of Yokoe. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the similarities in positive electrode material, processing, and amounts of Ti between the two inventions and find it obvious to look to the teachings of Yokoe regarding coating thickness. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that coating thickness is directly related to the content of TiO2 included. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to include a thickness of 1-200 nm, overlapping the claimed range of 90-200 nm, in order to improve output characteristics and cycle characteristics.
Regarding claims 5 and 8, Procter in view of Yokoe teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above, including a lithium nickel type oxide represented by the formula Li1-xNiyCozMn(1-y-z)MαO2-βQ β, wherein 0≤x≤0.7, 0.1<y<0.9, 0.1<z<0.4, 0≤α≤0.1, 0≤β≤0.5, M is at least one element selected from the group consisting of Zr, Mo, W, Mg, Ca, Na, Fe, Cr, Zn, Sn, and Al, and Q is at least one element selected from the group consisting of F, Cl, and Br (containing nickel, cobalt and manganese and having a molar ratio of nickel of 0.8 or more) (¶ [0021]-[0022]). The formula meets overlaps the limitations of claimed Chemical Formula 1, wherein in the formula of Procter, M may be Zr or Al and β is 0.
Regarding claim 11, Procter in view of Yokoe teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. While it is acknowledged that the integral peak intensity is not explicitly recited by Procter, the reference teaches the claimed composition, including the claimed lithium composite oxide and outer reversible lithium titanium oxide. Therefore, the claimed property, i.e., the integral peak intensity in the range of 460 eV to 470 eV of the cathode active material including the reversible lithium-titanium oxide being 10 to 14, would be implicitly achieved by a cathode active material with the same lithium composite oxide particle composition and reversible lithium titanium oxide. The instant specification has not provided adequate teachings that the claimed property is only obtainable with the claimed material. Should the Applicant disagree, it is requested that evidence is provided to support their position. See also MPEP 2112, 2112.01, and analogous burden of proof in MPEP 2113.
As evidence that the claimed property is inherent to the cathode active material taught by Procter, the reference teaches combining a lithium nickel type oxide and TiO2 (¶ [0062], Ln. 1-3), which the instant specification recognizes as essential to achieving the claimed peak intensity ratio and peak intensity. In particular, in paragraph [00123] of the instant specification, the sXAS analysis is said to confirm the presence of the lithium-titanium oxide. With respect the presence of the lithium-titanium oxide, Procter teaches that brookite type TiO2 forms a complex with Li ions, speeding up the extraction and insertion of Li ions and reducing reaction resistance (¶ [0027], Ln. 1-14). As stated above, as lithium ions are migrating, at a voltage within 4.1-4.3 V, lithium titanium oxide will be formed in the TiO2 coating layer. Therefore, in the claimed charging region, a reversible lithium titanium oxide will be generated. Depending on the state of charge of the battery, the TiO2 particles in the surface layer will be lithiated, partially lithiated, or not lithiated. Thus, the cathode active material taught by Procter teaches all of the essential features to achieving the claimed peak intensity in the range of 460 eV to 470 eV of the cathode active material including the reversible lithium-titanium oxide of 10 to 14.
Response to Arguments
Response-Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 103
In light of the Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 filed August 14, 2026, the previous rejection of claims 1, 5, 8, and 11 over Noh, et al. (US 2019/0393489 A1) in view of Kim, et al. (US 2020/0343553 A1) have been withdrawn and the previous rejection of claims 1, 5, 8, and 11 in view of Du, et al. (EP 3429000 A1) in view of Noh, et al. (US 2019/0393489 A1) have been modified above.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-14 of the remarks, with respect to Noh in view of Kim 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 arguments, see pages 12-14 of the remarks, with respect to Du in view of Noh have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that Du does not disclose or suggest an outer reversible lithium titanium oxide selectively formed in the claimed charging region consisting of lithium titanium oxide. This argument is not persuasive. As noted above, the reversible lithium titanium oxide selectively present in the claimed charging region would be inherent to the cathode active material taught by Du. Du teaches a TiO2 coating formed on a lithium-nickel-manganese-cobalt-based oxide ternary material, wherein the coating includes 5,000 ppm TiO2. Therefore, the reference teaches a coating wherein the TiO2 is included as independent particles. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that within a voltage of 4.1-4.3 V, lithium titanium oxide will be formed between the TiO2 in the coating layer and the migrating lithium ions of the lithium-nickel-manganese-cobalt-based oxide ternary material. Therefore, in the claimed charging region, a reversible lithium titanium oxide will be generated. Depending on the state of charge of the battery, the TiO2 particles in the surface layer will be lithiated, partially lithiated, or not lithiated. Further, based on the partial lithiation of the TiO2 particles, the lithium-titanium oxide generated at a voltage of 4.1-4.3 V may be represented by LixTiO2 (0<x≤0.6). In this case, the lithium-titanium oxide generated is considered the claimed outer reversible coating layer and consists of the lithium-titanium oxide. With respect to the argument that this does not meet the limitation of an “outer” layer as Du teaches a second oxide coating, the lithium titanium oxide layer is considered an outer layer with respect to the lithium-nickel-manganese-cobalt-based oxide ternary material particle. Thus, the presence of an additional oxide coating does not prevent the lithium titanium oxide from being considered an outer layer.
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 SARAH J JACOBSON whose telephone number is (703)756-1647. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291.
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.
/SARAH J JACOBSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1785
/MARK RUTHKOSKY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights