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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment and arguments filed 01/23/2026 have been fully considered. Claim(s) 1 is/are amended; claim(s) 10-12 remain withdrawn. Claims 1, 3-9, 13 are pending review in this Office action. Examiner affirms that the original disclosure provides adequate support for the amendment.
Upon considering said amendment and arguments, the previous rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 103 set forth in the Office action mailed 10/24/2025 has/have been withdrawn. Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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(s) 1, 3-4, 6, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hiratsuka et al. (JP2007234277A, see attached machine translation) as evidenced by Celotech (“Carboxymethyl Cellulose: Overview And Applications”; see copy provided with this Office action)
Regarding claim(s) 1, 13 Hiratsuka discloses a cathode active material (“positive electrode active material”) (claim 1) and a cathode (“positive electrode”) (claim 13) ([0026]) for a lithium secondary battery ([0027]) comprising a lithium metal oxide (“lithium-containing composite oxide”) particle core part (“aggregate”) ([0015]).
Hiratsuka further discloses a water-soluble polymer binder (13) provided between primary particles (12) of the cathode active material to bind them into a secondary particle (9) ([0015], FIG. 1). As the particles of water-soluble polymer binder (13) collectively cover at least a portion of the primary particle surface (12) by contacting and adhering to the primary particles, the plurality of water-soluble polymer binder particles (13) are recognized as a water-soluble polymer coating layer configured to cover at least a portion of the core part wherein the core part comprises a lithium metal oxide secondary particle (9) ([0015], see Annotated Hiratsuka FIG. 1 below), wherein the water-soluble polymer (13) is distributed at a boundary between lithium metal oxide primary particles (12), wherein the water-soluble polymer (13) is bonded between the lithium metal oxide primary particles (12) to form the secondary particle structure (9) ([0043], FIG. 1) (claim 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
630
1212
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Hiratsuka FIG. 1
An experimental embodiment of the cathode active material uses carboxymethyl cellulose as the water-soluble polymer ([0055]), where carboxymethyl cellulose is an anionic polymer (polyanion) as evidenced by Celotech (pp. 1, “carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) is an anionic, water-soluble cellulose derivative”)
Regarding claim(s) 3, 4, Hiratsuka discloses the cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1 comprising an anionic polymer. The broadest reasonable interpretation of claims 1, 3, and 4 has the cationic polymer claimed in the alternative. Since claim 3 recites “the cationic polymer” and therefore appears to only limit a previously present cationic polymer, claim 3 is interpreted as serving to further narrow an alternative limitation which is not required.
Therefore, by including anionic polymer claimed in claim 1, Hiratsuka under broadest reasonable interpretation meets the limitations of claim 3 and dependent claim 4.
Regarding claim(s) 6, Hiratsuka discloses the cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the lithium metal oxide particle comprises a lithium nickel-based metal oxide having the formula LiNi1-x-yCoxMnyO2, a specific named example of the lithium nickel-based metal oxide being LiNiO2 ([0003]), wherein in Formula 1:
[Formula 1] LixNiyM1-yO2
x=1 and y=1, within the claimed ranges of 0.9<x<1.2, y≥0.5, and where M is not positively recited when y=1.
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(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiratsuka (JP2007234277A) and Celotech as applied to claim 1, further in view of Chu et al. (CN111554930A; see attached machine translation).
Regarding claim(s) 5, Hiratsuka discloses the cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1 wherein an experimental embodiment of the water-soluble polymer comprises carboxymethyl cellulose ([0055]), a cationic polymer (polycation). While Hiratsuka’s disclosure is not necessarily limited to carboxymethyl cellulose so long as the polymer is water-soluble and has sufficient impregnation properties and binding power ([0019]), Hiratsuka fails to explicitly disclose the use of an anionic polymer comprising a repeating unit of Structural Formula 3 (see claim 5).
Chu is directed to an adhesive water-soluble polymer (Chu [0010], [0051-0055]) suitable for use as a cathode binder ([0082-0085]), the water-soluble polymer comprising a water-soluble cellulose and a copolymer of starch-grafted modified hydrophilic and hydrophobic comonomer ([0010-0011]). Chu further teaches a finite list of suitable hydrophilic monomers for use in the water-soluble polymer including dimethyl diallyl ammonium chloride and sodium acrylic acid inter alia ([0043]).
Advantageously, this water-soluble polymer has improved adhesion and tensile properties, providing improved electrochemical performance relative to water-soluble cellulose (e.g., carboxymethyl cellulose) ([0020-0021]).
As such, in seeking to improve the adhesion and tensile properties (i.e., binding power) of Hiratsuka’s cathode active material, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art to substitute Hiratsuka’s water-soluble polymer (carboxymethyl cellulose) with Chu’s water-soluble polymer. Such a modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as Chu’s teaches the water-soluble polymer as being a suitable replacement for carboxymethyl cellulose as a cathode adhesive (MPEP 2144.06 II).
Furthermore, as a skilled artisan must select some identity of hydrophilic monomer to successfully form modified Hiratsuka’s water-soluble adhesive, where Chu’s finite set of hydrophilic monomers are identified, predictable solutions within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art, it would be obvious for a skilled artisan to explore selecting sodium acrylic acid as the hydrophilic monomer with a reasonable expectation of successfully producing modified Hiratsuka’s cathode active material. Such a selection would result in the cathode active material according to claim 1 wherein the anionic polymer comprises a repeating unit of Structural Formula 3 (see Claim 5) where M is sodium as the alkali metal element.
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiratsuka (JP2007234277A) and Celotech as applied to claim 6, further in view of Hou et al. (Surface/Interfacial Structure and Chemistry of High-Energy Nickel-Rich Layered Oxide Cathodes: Advances and Perspectives; see copy provided with this Office action).
Regarding claim(s) 7 and 8, Hiratsuka discloses the cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 6 where the lithium metal oxide particle comprises a lithium nickel-based metal oxide represented by the general formula LiNi1-x-yCoxMnyO2, a specific named example of the lithium nickel-based metal oxide being LiNiO2 ([0003]). Hiratsuka further discloses an experimental embodiment using LiNi1/3Co1/3Mn1/3O2 ([0055]). A range of compositions between these two examples (LixNiyM1-yO2; see claim 6, where x=1 and 0.33≤y≤1) encompasses the claimed range 0.6≤y≤0.93 (claim 7) where M includes Co and Mn (claim 8) such that a skilled artisan could have routinely selected within the overlap through combining equivalent positive electrode active materials disclosed by Hiratsuka with a reasonable expectation of successfully producing Hiratsuka’s cathode active material (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Assuming arguendo that Applicant proves a skilled artisan would not necessarily have selected a composition of Formula 1 (LixNiyM1-yO2) where 0.6≤y≤0.93 and where M includes Co and Mn from Hiratsuka’s disclosure, Hou, a study of lithium nickel-based metal oxides (Hou, abstract), teaches that the proportions of Ni, Co, and Mn in a nickel-based metal oxide have corresponding effects on the active material’s capacity, rate capability and safety/stability, respectively (Hou P15 FIG. 13).
As such, in seeking to balance improving the material capacity with Ni while providing sufficient rate capability and safety from Co and Mn, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the proportion y of Ni within the range of 0.33≤y≤1 disclosed by Hiratsuka according to Hou’s teachings, encompassing the claimed range (0.6≤y≤0.93, claim 7) where M includes Co and Mn (claim 8) such that a skilled artisan would have selected within the encompassed range through routine optimization with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Regarding claim(s) 9, Hiratsuka discloses the cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 6. While Hiratsuka desires to improve the cycle characteristics and lifetime of a battery with the cathode ([0016]), Hiratsuka fails to disclose the use of lithium metal oxide particles comprising a doping or coating including at least one of Al, Zr and Ti for this purpose
Hou, a study of lithium nickel-based metal oxides (Hou, abstract), teaches doping metal oxides with Al and Ti to improve the structural and thermal stability and the lifespan of the active material (P17/C1/¶2).
As such, in seeking to improve the structural and thermal stability and the lifespan of Hiratsuka’s cathode active material, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to dope Hiratsuka’s lithium metal oxide particles with at least one of Al or Ti as taught by Hou. Such a modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success, as Hou teaches a compatibility of the doping process with lithium nickel-based metal oxides such as Hiratsuka’s cathode active material.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Oshima et al. (US20150099167) in view of Sato (US20040234677) and claims 6-9 further in view of Cho et al. (US20210075005) (Remarks pp. 6-14) 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. Withdrawal of the previous ground of rejection has been necessitated by Applicant’s amendment filed 01/23/2026.
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 EVERETT T CHOI whose telephone number is (703)756-1331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11:00-8:00.
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, Jonathan G Leong can be reached on (571) 270 1292. 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.
/E.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 3/30/2026