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 .
Claim Status
Claim 1 is amended.
Claim 4 is cancelled.
Claim 7 is new.
Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are considered on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the instant application has specific differences from the cited references as follows:
There is insufficient rationale to modify Fukuchi to incorporate the teachings of Nagai at least because doing so would render Fukuchi's device unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.
The limitations of Claim 1 cannot be met by the art of record.
These arguments are not found persuasive for the following reasons.
Regarding arguments a and b, Fukuchi teaches a method of producing Li1.03Ni0.8CO0.1Mn0.1O2 with Ca present of the surface (Fukuchi [0069]1) including: mixing a compound containing nickel, cobalt, and Me with a lithium compound and a calcium compound, and firing the resulting mixture to produce a positive electrode active material containing Ca atoms, characterized in that the amount of the calcium compound added is determined in the range of from 0.001 to 0.05 in terms of the molar ratio (Ca/M) of Ca atoms in the calcium compound to the total amount (M) of Ni atoms, Co atoms, and Me atoms in the compound containing the nickel, cobalt, and Me atoms ([0035]). This method taught by Fukuchi is substantially the same as the method disclosed in the instant specification, in which a transition metal oxide, lithium compound, and a calcium or strontium compound are dry-mixed an then calcined in a multi-step process including a first temperature of 450-680℃ and a second step of 680-850℃ (Instant specification [0043]-[0044]). Further, the material taught by Fukuchi contains an amount of Ca overlapping with the instant invention (Fukuchi [0014], [0035], Table 3 Example 1-4; Instant specification Table 1-3). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that said positive electrode active material, would inherently possess the same properties, including the same x-ray diffraction pattern as the claimed material.
Furthermore, as noted in the arguments dated 11/25/2025, Fukuchi teaches that a diffraction peak at 2θ = 37.4±0.2° is derived from CaO ([0028]-[0029]). The Instant Specification includes Figure 2, reproduced and annotated below, showing XRD graphs of CaO, SrO and Examples 2-3 (Instant specification Fig. 2; [0010]) and notes that “no peaks derived from SrO and CaO were present in the X-ray diffraction pattern of any of Examples” ([0075]). Claim 1 now requires the claimed material to exhibit a lack of peaks derived from CaO and SrO. However, Figure 2 of the instant specification, reproduced and annotated below, shows peaks in the range of 2θ = 35 to 40° in the XRD pattern of Example 3. These peaks appear to correspond to the peak derived from CaO taught by Fukuchi.
PNG
media_image1.png
432
630
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Reproduced and annotated Figure 2 of Instant Specification.
Additionally, Fukuchi teaches peaks in the range of ~ 2θ = 18° in the XRD pattern of example material (Fig. 1; [0076]; [0028]) which appears to correspond to a similar peak at ~ 2θ = 18° in the XRD diffraction patterns of instant Examples 2 and 3 (see annotated Fig. 2 above), in which “no peaks derived from SrO and CaO were present” (Instant specification [0075]).
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuchi et al. (JP 2009032467 A) hereinafter "Fukuchi", cited in previous office action, in view of Liu et al. (Nickel-Rich Layered Lithium Transition-Metal Oxide for High-Energy Lithium-Ion Batteries, 2015) and Ngala et al. (The synthesis, characterization and electrochemical behavior of the layered LiNi0.4Mn0.4Co0.2O2 compound, 2003) hereinafter "Ngala".
Regarding claim 1, Fukuchi teaches positive electrode active material for non-aqueous electrolyte secondary batteries. comprising: a lithium transition metal composite oxide having a layered structure, represented by a formula LiaNixMnyMzO2-b wherein 0.95 < a < 1.05, 0.7 ≤ x ≤ 0.95, 0 <y ≤ 0.3, 0≤ z ≤ 0.3, 0 ≤ b < 0.05, x+ y + z = 1, and M is at least one element selected from the group consisting of Al, Co, Fe, Ti, Si, Nb, Mo, W, and Zn ( [0013]; [0069] Li1.03Ni0.8CO0.1Mn0.1O2; Table 3) and a compound A including at least one of Ca and Sr present on a surface or at a boundary of primary particles of the lithium transition metal composite oxide ([0010]; [0021]; [0020]; [0069]; Table 3; [0030]). Fukuchi teaches Li1.03Ni0.8CO0.1Mn0.1O2 with Ca present of the surface ([0069]).
Fukuchi does not explicitly teach wherein the layered structure includes a Li layer in which Li reversibly moves in and out, and a proportion of metal elements excluding Li present in the Li layer is 0.7 mol% or more and 3.0 mol% or less relative to a total molar amount of the metal elements excluding Li in the lithium transition metal composite oxide and wherein a m/n ratio of a half width m of a diffraction peak in a (003) plane to a half width n of a diffraction peak in a (104) plane is 0.75 ≤ m/n ≤ 1.0 in an X-ray diffraction pattern by X-ray diffraction.
However, Fukuchi teaches a method of producing this material including: mixing a compound containing nickel, cobalt, and Me with a lithium compound and a calcium compound, and firing the resulting mixture to produce a positive electrode active material containing Ca atoms, characterized in that the amount of the calcium compound added is determined in the range of from 0.001 to 0.05 in terms of the molar ratio (Ca/M) of Ca atoms in the calcium compound to the total amount (M) of Ni atoms, Co atoms, and Me atoms in the compound containing the nickel, cobalt, and Me atoms ([0035]). More specifically, a dry mixing process is used to mix a transition metal oxide ([0037]); a lithium oxide, hydroxide, or carbonate; and a calcium hydroxide, calcium hydrogen phosphate, or calcium carbonate; where a ratio of calcium atoms in the calcium compound to the total amount of nickel, cobalt, and Me atoms is in the range of from 0.001 to 0.05 ([0043]) and a ratio of lithium atoms in the lithium compound to the total amount of nickel, cobalt, and Me atoms is preferably determined in the range of from 0.98 to 1.2, preferably from 1.0 to 1.1 in terms of the molar ratio ([0044]). Fukuchi teaches a multistep firing process, including a first step of 200-400℃ and a second step of 700 to 900℃ in an oxygen environment ([0045]).
The method taught by Fukuchi dis substantially the same as the method disclosed in the instant specification, in which a transition metal oxide, lithium compound, and a calcium or strontium compound are dry-mixed an then calcined in a multi-step process including a first temperature of 450-680℃ and a second step of 680-850℃ (Instant specification [0043]-[0044]).
Given that the positive electrode active material in Fukuchi, has the same structure and compositions as claimed, it is the Examiner’s position that said the positive electrode active material, would inherently possess the same properties, including the same proportion of metal elements excluding Li present in the Li layer, and m/n ratio of a half width m of a diffraction peak in a (003) plane to a half width n of a diffraction peak in a (104) plane (See MPEP 2112.01). 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 re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir.1990).
This conclusion is supported by Liu and Ngala .
Liu teaches that nickel-rich lithium transition metal oxides suffer from cation mixing wherein transition metal ions migrate to the lithium layer resulting in a multitude of negative effects (pg. 4441-4442; 4447). Liu teaches that transition metal oxides with a general formula LiMO2 where M = transition metal elements, specifically manganese, nickel, or cobalt, are layered structures where Li slabs lay in between MO2 slabs (pg. 4441). Liu teaches that in nickel-based, Ni2+ has a similar radius to Li+ resulting in site exchange between Ni2+ and Li+, referred to as cation mixing, which causes capacity loss and structure deterioration, poor thermal stability, and other negative effects (pg. 4441-4442; pg. 4444). Liu also teaches that a minimal amount of cation mixing is responsible for the desirable qualities of Ni-rich materials (4446). Liu teaches that in nickel-rich lithium transition metal oxides, transition metal ions migrate to the lithium layer and that doping LNiO2 with additional transition metals is an effective strategy to improve structural stability, for example Li-Ni-Co-Mn-O compounds are used (pg. 4442; 4447). Liu teaches that surface coating can further improve material stability (pg. 4449). Liu further teaches that a ratio intensity of peak (003) to the intensity of peak (004) is used to determine amount of cation mixing (pg. 4444-4445).
Ngala teaches Li-Ni-Mn-Co-O materials (abstract) where synthesis temperature and composition have large effect on the amount of transition metal in the lithium layer (pg. 216; Fig. 3). Ngala teaches the synthesis temperature is in the range of 800-900℃ (pg. 219). Ngala teaches that lower amounts of transition metal in the Li layer is desirable, and compounds with less than 3% metal in the lithium layer showed high reversible capacity (pg. 216, 219).
Therefore, in view of Fukuchi and Liu, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the material taught by Fukuchi to have the same properties as the instantly claimed material.
Regarding claim 2, Fukuchi teaches wherein a total amount of Ca and Sr in the compound A is 1 mol% or less relative to a total molar amount of metal elements excluding Li in the lithium transition metal composite oxide ([0014]; [0035]; Table 3 example 1, 42; Claim 2 is interpreted as required Ca and/or Sr). 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) (see MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding claim 3, Fukuchi in view of Liu and Ngala teaches the positive electrode active material of claim 1.
Fukuchi does not teach wherein a crystallite size s is in a range of 400 A ≤ s ≤ 800 A, as calculated by a Scherrer's formula from a half width n of a diffraction peak in a (104) plane in an X-ray diffraction pattern by X-ray diffraction.
However, given that the positive electrode active material in Fukuchi, has the same structure and compositions as claimed, it is the Examiner’s position that said the positive electrode active material, would inherently possess the same properties, including the same crystallite size (See MPEP 2112.01). 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 re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir.1990).
Regarding claim 4, Fukuchi in view of Liu and Ngala teaches the positive electrode active material of claim 1. Fukuchi teaches that a comparative example 1, in which calcium was not added and no peak from calcium oxide was detected ([0070]; [0077]).
Fukuchi does not teach wherein no peaks derived from CaO and SrO are present in an X-ray diffraction pattern by X-ray diffraction measurement of the positive electrode active material.
However, Fukuchi teaches a method of producing Li1.03Ni0.8CO0.1Mn0.1O2 with Ca present of the surface ([0069]) including: mixing a compound containing nickel, cobalt, and Me with a lithium compound and a calcium compound, and firing the resulting mixture to produce a positive electrode active material containing Ca atoms, characterized in that the amount of the calcium compound added is determined in the range of from 0.001 to 0.05 in terms of the molar ratio (Ca/M) of Ca atoms in the calcium compound to the total amount (M) of Ni atoms, Co atoms, and Me atoms in the compound containing the nickel, cobalt, and Me atoms ([0035]). More specifically, a dry mixing process is used to mix a transition metal oxide ([0037]); a lithium oxide, hydroxide, or carbonate; and a calcium hydroxide, calcium hydrogen phosphate, or calcium carbonate; where a ratio of calcium atoms in the calcium compound to the total amount of nickel, cobalt, and Me atoms is in the range of from 0.001 to 0.05 ([0043]) and a ratio of lithium atoms in the lithium compound to the total amount of nickel, cobalt, and Me atoms is preferably determined in the range of from 0.98 to 1.2, preferably from 1.0 to 1.1 in terms of the molar ratio ([0044]). Fukuchi teaches a multistep firing process, including a first step of 200-400℃ and a second step of 700 to 900℃ in an oxygen environment ([0045]).
The method taught by Fukuchi is substantially the same as the method disclosed in the instant specification, in which a transition metal oxide, lithium compound, and a calcium or strontium compound are dry-mixed an then calcined in a multi-step process including a first temperature of 450-680℃ and a second step of 680-850℃ (Instant specification [0043]-[0044]).
Given that the positive electrode active material in Fukuchi has the same structure and compositions as claimed, it is the Examiner’s position that said positive electrode active material, would inherently possess the same properties, including the same x-ray diffraction pattern (See MPEP 2112.01). 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 re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir.1990).
Regarding claim 5, Fukuchi teaches method for producing the positive electrode active material including a step of calcinating a mixture obtained by dry-mixing a transition metal oxide, a Li compound and at least one of a Ca compound and a Sr compound at 850°C or lower ([0069] Example 1-3; [0045]).
Regrading claim 6, Fukuchi further teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery. comprising: a positive electrode including the positive electrode active material; a negative electrode; and anon-aqueous electrolyte ([0084]).
Regarding claim 7, Fukuchi teaches wherein a total amount of Ca and Sr in the compound A is 0.1 mol% or more relative to a total molar amount of metal elements excluding Li in the lithium transition metal composite oxide ([0014]; [0035]; Table 3 example 1, 43; Claim 2 is interpreted as requiring Ca and/or Sr). 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) (see MPEP §2144.05).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sasakawa et al. (US 20200295363 A1) teaches a positive active material according to the formula Lix(NiaCobMncMd)1−s(Nb1−tTat)sO2 having a crystal structure belonging to R3/m, C2/M and a layered structure including lithium layers, transition metal layers, and oxygen layers ([0023]-[0024]). Sasakawa teaches the addition of Ta and Nb suppresses the migration of transition metals into the lithium layer ([0028]).
Baek et al. (US 20200313194 A1) teaches a coated positive active material (abstract; [0030]) where a crystallite size of a (003) plane of each positive electrode active material is calculated according to the following Scherrer equation ([0107]). Baek teaches a crystallite size of 50-80 where a larger crystallite size denotes better crystallinity ([0110]; Table 3).
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 FELICITY B. ALBAN whose telephone number is (703)756-5398. 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, Matthew Martin can be reached at 571-270-7871. 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.
/F.B.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
1 Throughout Response to Arguments, reference is made to US20110020704A1, a U.S. counterpart to Fukuchi JP2009032467A which is cited in Claim Rejections and previous Office Actions
2 Ca is present at 0.05-7 mol% (Tables 3-5; [0071]-[0074]). Mol% is considered equal to 100x molar ratio (See [0033]; [0055]; and Table 1 of Instant Specification where Li.99Ni0.82CO0.15Mn0.03Sr0.01Ca0.001O2 corresponds to 0.1 mol% Ca, 82 mol% Ni, etc. )
3 Ca is present at 0.05-7 mol% (Tables 3-5; [0071]-[0074]). Mol% is considered equal to 100x molar ratio (See [0033]; [0055]; and Table 1 of Instant Specification where Li.99Ni0.82CO0.15Mn0.03Sr0.01Ca0.001O2 corresponds to 0.1 mol% Ca, 82 mol% Ni, etc. )
Prosecution Insights