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
Claims 1, 3, 5, and 12-15 have been amended. Claims 8-11 and 22-23 are cancelled. Claims 1, 3-7, and 12-21, as filed 22 May 2026, are examined herein. No new matter is included.
Response to Arguments
A new rejection under 35 USC 112(b) of claims 1, 3-7, and 12-21, is made in light of Applicant’s amendment.
Applicant has amended claim 1 to include the limitation “a lithium composite metal oxide comprising nickel (Ni) of 94 mol% or more, aluminum, and titanium (Ti) as main components”. Applicant argues that Nanno is directed to solving the problem of degraded adhesion within electrodes and consequent capacity loss caused by volumetric expansion and contraction. Applicant argues that Nanno solves this by forming cracks on the surface of primary particles and therefore surface cracks are essential to Nanno. Applicant argues that Kim is directed to improving the structural instability of LiNiO2 caused by the migration of Ni2+ ions into the Li layer. Applicant therefore argues that Nanno and Kim address fundamentally different approaches, therefore there is no motivation to combine.
This is not persuasive. Nanno explicitly teaches Al as one of the elements in the Markush group for Me in formula 1. Kim explicitly teaches combining Ni, Ti, Al in same lattice.
Applicant further argues that Kim does not employ Na-containing intermediaries or Na/Li ion exchange. This is not persuasive. Nanno at [0032] teaches a composition that includes the claimed composition. Nanno discloses [0134] the use of heat treatment at 700˚C for 12 hours (compare to the instant specification, page 17, Example 1-1, a co-precipitation process followed by calcination at 775 °C.) Nanno teaches co-precipitation for examples 3 and 5 (which have a different chemistry from Example 9) but does not explicitly teach the use of co-precipitation for Example 9. It would be obvious to use the co-precipitation of examples 3 and 5 to make Nanno example 9, with a reasonable expectation of success.
At [0060] Nanno teaches ion exchanging of sodium into lithium for the composition of [0032]. At [0108-0110], Nanno teaches that a sodium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide composition can be converted to a lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide that can be made through molten salt exchange. The person of ordinary skill, who is motivated to substitute some of the Ti for Al based on Kim’s motivation, would still expect the process of Nanno to work based on Nanno’s disclosure at [0032] and [0060].
Applicant further argues that the instant invention uses different technical means than Nanno in view of Kim. Specifically, Applicant argues that the instant invention has a novel chemical composition and electrochemical characteristics derived therefrom. This is not persuasive. The claimed composition has been rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 16, Applicant argues that the core shell of Nam is not gradient and with respect to claim 18, Applicant argues that the shell of Nam is not a coating. This is not persuasive. Applicant is suggested to explicitly indicate how the gradient or coating of Nam are different from the claimed structures.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites the limitation “A lithium composite metal oxide comprising nickel (Ni) of 94 mol% or more.” This could be interpreted as 94 mol % of the entire composition. Referring to the formula at page 13 of the instant specification, and also to Table 1, it would be more clear to recite “A lithium composite metal oxide comprising nickel at 94 mol% or more of the non-lithium metal in the metal oxide.” The broadest reasonable interpretation is determined to be “A lithium composite metal oxide comprising nickel at 94 mol% or more of the non-lithium metal in the metal oxide.” Claims 3 and 5 have similar limitations.
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “aluminum and titanium as main components”. Noting that nickel is 94 mol% or more of the non-lithium metals, the aluminum and titanium together can be no more than 6 mol% of the non-lithium metals. There is no special definition in the specification for the term “main components”. Examiner notes that in claim 5, the lithium composite metal oxide comprises 0.5 mol% or more of titanium. For the purpose of examination, the broadest reasonable interpretation is determined to include where aluminum and titanium are each more than 0.5 mol% of the non-lithium metals.”
Claim 12 recites the limitation “wherein a, b and c satisfy 0.94<a<1, 0<b<1, and 0<c<1, with a proviso of a+b+c≤1, and a, b and c satisfy a>b>c or a>c>b.” Examiner notes that given the above requirements, the maximum possible values for b and c is 0.06. The limitation “0.94<a<1, 0<b<1, and 0<c<1” includes values where are outside of the scope of “0.94<a<1” in view of “a+b+c≤1” and “a>b>c or a>c>b”. The broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 12 is determined to include “wherein a, b and c satisfy 0<a<0.94, 0<b<0.06, and 0<c<0.06, with a proviso of a+b+c≤1, and a, b and c satisfy a>b>c or a>c>b.”
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: at claim 15, the limitation “0.82≤a≤1” is struck out and replaced with “09.4≤a≤1”. Examiner believes that Applicant intended to amend this limitation to “0.94≤a≤1”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 14-15, 17, 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nanno (US 20080118829 A1) in view of Kim (US 20030047717 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 3-6, 12-15, 17, and 19-21, Nanno teaches ([0032]) a lithium composite metal oxide having the formula Li(w-x)NaxNi(1-y-x)MnyMezO2 and w satisfies the following relation: 0.9≦w≦1.1, x satisfies the following relation: 0≦x≦0.05, y satisfies the following relation: 0≦y≦0.34, z satisfies the following relation: 0≦z≦0.34, and Me represents at least one element selected from the group consisting of Co, Fe, Cu, Al, Mg, Ti, Zr, Ce and Y. The composition of claim 1 (comprising nickel (Ni) of 94 mol% and comprising aluminum and titanium as main components) falls within the composition disclosed at [0032].
At ([0134-0137] Example 9: LI0.98Na0.02Ni0.95Ti0.05O2). Nanno further discloses [0071-0072] the use of silicon compounds including SiOx (silicon oxide) as negative active materials having a large capacity density. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to select SiOx as the negative active material for the battery of modified Nanno, based on Nanno’s teaching of that SiOx is one of a finite number of identified, predictable solutions to create a battery having large capacity density, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Nanno discloses [0134] the use of heat treatment at 700˚C for 12 hours (compare to the instant specification, page 17, Example 1-1, a co-precipitation process followed by calcination at 775 °C.) Nanno teaches co-precipitation for examples 3 and 5 (which have a different chemistry from Example 9) but does not explicitly teach the use of co-precipitation for Example 9.
Nanno does not teach the claimed lithium composite oxide comprising aluminum.
Kim, in the field of (abstract) nickel titanium positive active materials, discloses [0009] a lithium nickel oxide having the formula LiuNivTiwAlxCoyOz, where the u is between about 0.8 and about 1.2, the v is between about 0.5 and about 0.99, the w is between about 0.01 and about 0.5, the X is between about 0.00 and about 0.5, the y is between about 0.00 and about 0.5, and Z is between about 1.8 and 2.3. (Examiner notes that this encompasses the claimed composition). Kim further discloses [0009] that the composition can be made by co-precipitation (one of three methods disclosed) and that the composition provides for a positive active material having a high energy density. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to manufacture the composition of Nanno using the co-precipitation method of Kim, because it represents one of a finite number of identified possibilities, with a reasonable expectation of successfully creating a positive active material having a high energy density.
The composition of Nanno in view of Kim meets the composition limitations of claim 1 and has a substantially similar manufacturing process as the material disclosed in the instant specification, Examples 1-1 to 2-2, which meets the claimed charging and discharging limitations. Therefore, the composition of Nanno would necessarily possess at least two of the charge/discharge characteristics required by the claim. Nanno’s example 9 modified by substituting in Kim’s aluminum creates Li0.98Na0.02Ni0.95Ti0.025Al0.025O2).
Regarding Nanno in view of Kim, a person of ordinary skill would be motivated to select Nanno’s co-precipitation followed by ion exchange for Nanno’s example 9, modified by Kim’s addition of aluminum, based on Nanno’s teaching at of co-precipitation and ion exchange as a successful strategy for a wide variety of lithium nickel oxide chemistries, including at Example 4 ([0108]) where alumina is used to make an aluminum-containing compound.
Regarding charging and discharging characteristics, Nanno discloses (Table 1) that Example 9 has an initial capacity of 189 mAh/g and retains 90.5% capacity after 50 charge/discharge cycles at 4.2 V to 3.0 V. Nanno is silent on the charge/discharge efficiency.
The composition of Nanno in view of Kim meets the composition limitations of claim 1 and has a substantially similar manufacturing process as the material disclosed in the instant specification, Examples 1-1 to 2-2, which meets the claimed charging and discharging limitations. Therefore, the composition of Nanno would necessarily possess at least two of the charge/discharge characteristics required by the claim. This also renders obvious the limitations of claim 3 (at least two of the charge/discharge characteristics), claim 4 (three charge characteristics), claim 5 (0.5 mol% or more titanium – refer to above rejection under 35 USC 112(b)), claim 6 (the lithium metal oxide does not comprise at least one of Co and Mn), claim 12, (0.94<a<1, 0<b<1, 0<c<1 and a+b+c<=1 and a,b,c satisfy a>b
≥
c) and claim 13 (wherein 0<b<0.18 and 0<c<0.18). Regarding claims 14 and 15, Examiner notes that for values of c=0 and d=0, Nanno in view of Kim as set forth above teaches a composition falling within the claimed composition, thus rendering it obvious. Regarding claim 17, Nanno in view of Kim teaches a cathode active material comprising the lithium composite metal oxide of claim 1. Regarding claim 19, Nanno in view of Kim teaches a battery comprising the cathode active material according to claim 17 (Nanno at [0015]), claim 20, (the anode comprises a Si-based anode), and claim 21 (the Si-based anode active material comprises silicon oxide).
Regarding claim 7 (“further optionally comprises one or more of cobalt (Co) and manganese (Mn), a total content of cobalt and manganese is less than or equal to a content of titanium (Ti).”), the presence of Co or Mn is optional, therefore this limitation is met by the Ni TiAl containing compound rendered obvious above.
Claim(s) 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nanno (US 20080118829 A1) in view of Kim (US 20030047717 A1), as set forth in claims 14 and 17, above, and in further view of Nam (US 20190372110 A1).
Regarding claim 16 and claim 18, Nanno in view of Kim teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. However, Nanno is silent on a concentration gradient and does not explicitly teach wherein at least one of Li, Ni, Ti, Al, and D has a concentration gradient that increases or decreases as a function of a radius of an oxide particle.
Nam, in the field of (abstract) positive active materials, teaches (FIG. 1) a similar lithium composite metal oxide having a gradient of Ni concentration. At ([0025]) Nam contemplates that a core shell gradient is advantageous for stabilizing a structure by maintaining the molar content of nickel in the core portion at a high level to increase capacity and increasing a molar content of a dissimilar metal (e.g. Mn, Co, Al, or the like) while reducing the molar content of nickel in the shell portion.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to modify the active material of Nanno in view of Kim with the gradient of Nam, with a reasonable expectation of successfully creating an active material which supports a higher capacity battery.
This also renders obvious the limitation of claim 18, wherein a coating layer is formed on a surface of a particle of the lithium composite metal oxide.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kim, (US 20180123130 A1) in the field of (abstract) nickel metal oxide positive active materials, discloses [0009] a lithium nickel oxide having the formula LixNi1-yMyO2, where M is one or more of Al, Ti, …, and y is between 0.1 and 0.4. Kim further discloses [0022] that the positive active material offers high capacity. At [0024] Kim contemplates that substituting a heterogeneous element (Al, Fe, Ge) can stabilize the internal structure of the active material.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CLAIRE A RUTISER whose telephone number is (571)272-1969. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM M-F.
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 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.
CLAIRE A. RUTISER
Examiner
Art Unit 1751
/C.A.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/Haroon S. Sheikh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
