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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received on 07/08/2026:
Claims 1-3, 5, 8-9, and 11-18 are pending in the current application. Claims 1 and 14 have been amended. Claims 14-16 stand withdrawn.
The previous prior art-based rejection have been overcome in light of the amendments to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot due to the amendment to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8-9, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al (US 10,930,922 B2) in view of Kim et al (US 20190123347 A1) in view of Zheng et al (US 2016/0049645 A1) in view of Lee et al (US 20220029152 A1), or, alternatively, Sun et al (US 10,930,922 B2) in view of Kim et al (US 20190123347 A1) in view of Zheng et al (US 2016/0049645 A1) in view of Lee et al (US 20220029152 A1) in view of Matsumoto (JP 2006054159 A, using the previously provided machine English translation from Espacenet).
Regarding claim 1, Sun discloses a positive (cathode) active material particle following the formula Lia1M1x1M2y1M3z1M4wO2+δ that can contain an element selected from Ni, Co, Mn or a combination thereof as M1, M2, and M3 (therefore, one can choose M1 to be Ni, M2 to be Co, and M3 to be Mn), and an element selected from Fe, Na, Mg, Ca, Ti, V, Cr, Cu, Zn, Ge, Sr, Ag, Ba, Zr, Nb, Mo, Al, Ga, B or a combination thereof as M4 (therefore, one can choose M4 to include Na, Mg, and Ti, C4 / L34-37 and 54-58). Additionally, Sun discloses 0<a1≤1.1, 0≤x1≤1, 0≤y1≤1, 0≤z1≤1, 0≤w≤0.1, 0≤δ≤1, and 0≤x1+y1+z1≤1 (Col. 4, Ln. 50-61). Sun discloses wherein their positive (cathode) active material is a single particle and a single crystal (Col. 4, Ln. 34-61, Col. 6, Ln. 51-58, Col. 7, Ln. 5-10, Col. 15, Ln. 15-19, Col. 67, Ln. 9-17).
However, Sun does not disclose including W and S in the positive active material.
In a similar field of endeavor, Kim teaches lithium transition metal oxides used as active materials in a positive electrode in rechargeable lithium batteries (P32). Kim teaches the positive electrode active material has a particulate form (P36, 42, 44). Kim teaches the active materials have an NMC composition and can be doped with tungsten (W) (P32). Kim teaches the material exhibits a higher discharge capacity and improved rate capability when W-based dopants are added (P34). In Kim’s own formula, the dopant is added in an amount of equal to or less than 1 mol% (P17 wherein dopant A can be utilized in amount “k”, and k ≤ 0.01).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Kim and doped the positive active material of Sun with tungsten in an amount of 1 mol% or less, given Park teaches positive electrode active materials having an NMC composition have exhibited higher discharge capacity and improved rate capability when W-based dopants are added.
However, modified Sun does not meet the limitation wherein S is in the positive active material.
In a similar field of endeavor, Zheng teaches a cathode material for a lithium ion secondary battery (P10). Zheng teaches the cathode active material has the general formula Li1+δ[Ni1-x-yCoxMy]O2-αPα, wherein M is at least one metal element selected from Mn, Na, Mg, Al, Ti, and W, and P can represent F or S. Zheng further teaches 0≤α≤0.2 (P20). Zheng teaches that doping with elements such as F or S can improve the thermal stability and cycling stability of the cathode material and is generally controlled to 5% of the amount of the oxygen (P26; also, as an example of the doping, see Example 6 in Table 2 wherein oxygen is 1.98 and F is 0.02).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Zheng and doped the positive active material particle of Sun with S, given Zheng teaches doping with a material such as S can improve thermal stability and cycling stability of a cathode material.
Thus, the combination of Sun, Kim, and Zheng teaches a cathode active material that can include Li, Na, Ni, Co, Mn, W, Mg, Ti, O, and S, wherein the amount of W can be equal to or less than 1 mol% (Chen P17, 34) and the amount of S is controlled to 5% of the amount of oxygen (Zheng P26). Regarding the rest of the amounts of the elements, the ranges overlap the claimed ranges or are similar enough to the claimed ranges such that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected them to have the same properties as the claimed formula. 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (See MPEP § 2144.05). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
However, modified Sun does not meet the limitation wherein an average diameter (D50) of the lithium transition metal oxide is 5 µm to 15 µm.
In a similar field of endeavor, Lee teaches a positive electrode active material layer including a lithium nickel cobalt manganese-based oxide (P29-31). Lee teaches the lithium nickel cobalt manganese-based oxide can be in the form of a single particle and have an average particle diameter D50 of 3 μm to 15 μm (P43). Lee teaches if particles in which an average particle diameter of 3 µm or more are used, the contact area with the electrolyte solution is decreased and the side reaction with the electrolyte solution, which causes swelling and battery performance degradation, may be minimized (P41-42).
The average diameter (D50) range of Lee, 3 µm to 15 µm, overlaps with the claimed range of 5 µm to 15 µm, and 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (See MPEP § 2144.05)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Lee and chosen the average diameter (D50) of the lithium transition metal oxide of modified Sun to be within the claimed range, given the claimed range overlaps with the range taught by Lee, and Lee teaches their range can provide wherein a positive electrode active material of lithium nickel cobalt manganese-based oxide has a decreased contact area with the electrolyte solution, thereby minimizing the side reaction with the electrolyte solution that causes swelling and battery performance degradation.
In the instance that Applicant does not believe wherein the lithium transition metal oxide of modified Sun is a single particle and a single crystal:
In a similar field of endeavor, Matsumoto teaches a positive electrode active material for a non-aqueous secondary battery (P20) represented by the formula LixNi1-p-q-rCopAlqArO2-y, wherein A can be at least one element selected from a group consisting of Ti, Mn, Mg, Ni, and Co, (P39). Matsumoto teaches the positive electrode active material is made of primary particles which are single crystals (P20). Matsumoto teaches that by making primary particles single crystals, the crystal grain boundaries within the primary particles disappear, and the electrical resistance can be reduced (P35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Matsumoto and modified the lithium transition metal oxide of modified Sun to be a single particle and single crystal, given Matsumoto teaches this can reduce electrical resistance.
Regarding claims 2-3, Sun discloses a positive (cathode) active material particle following the formula Lia1M1x1M2y1M3z1M4wO2+δ that can contain an element selected from Ni, Co, Mn or a combination thereof as M1, M2, and M3 (therefore, one can choose M1 to be Ni, M2 to be Co, and M3 to be Mn), and an element selected from Fe, Na, Mg, Ca, Ti, V, Cr, Cu, Zn, Ge, Sr, Ag, Ba, Zr, Nb, Mo, Al, Ga, B or a combination thereof as M4 (therefore, one can choose M4 to include Na, Mg, and Ti, C4 / L34-37 and 54-58). Additionally, Sun discloses 0<a1≤1.1, 0≤x1≤1, 0≤y1≤1, 0≤z1≤1, 0≤w≤0.1, 0≤δ≤1, and 0≤x1+y1+z1≤1 (Col. 4, Ln. 50-61).
Given M4 can be selected to be Na, Mg, and Ti and 0≤w≤0.1, one of ordinary skill in the art could select Mg and Ti to each be 0.003 leaving the amount of Na to be 0≤Na≤0.097. The amount of Na can be selected to be 0.01, which allows the amounts of Na, Mg, and Ti to be within the claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 5, modified Sun meets the limitation wherein M includes Ni and one of more elements selected from Co, Mn, Al (Ni and Mn, see the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claims 8-9, the combination of Sun, Matsuda, and Zheng teaches a cathode active material that can include Li, Na, Ni, Co, Mn, W, Mg, Ti, O, and S (such as required by Formula 2), wherein the amount of W can be 0.5 mol% or 1 mol% (Park Abstract) and the amount of S is controlled to 5% of the amount of oxygen (Zheng P26). Regarding the rest of the amounts of the elements, the ranges overlap the claimed ranges or are similar enough to the claimed ranges such that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected them to have the same properties as the claimed formula. 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (See MPEP § 2144.05). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 17, Sun discloses a lithium secondary battery comprising: a positive electrode comprising the positive active material according to claim 1; a negative electrode; and an electrolyte (C49 / L55-62).
Regarding claim 18, while modified Sun does not explicitly disclose “wherein the lithium secondary battery has a capacity retention rate of 90 % or more after 100 charge/discharge cycles”, modified Sun discloses a structure substantially identical to that of claim 17, therefore, the claimed property of the lithium secondary battery is presumed to be inherent.
Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al (US 10,930,922 B2) in view of Kim et al (US 20190123347 A1) in view of Zheng et al (US 2016/0049645 A1) in view of Lee et al (US 20220029152 A1), or, alternatively, Sun et al (US 10,930,922 B2) in view of Kim et al (US 20190123347 A1) in view of Zheng et al (US 2016/0049645 A1) in view of Lee et al (US 20220029152 A1) in view of Matsumoto (JP 2006054159 A, using the provided machine English translation from Espacenet)1 as applied to claim 1, further in view of Myung et al (US 20160197346 A1).
Regarding claims 11-13, modified Sun does not meet the limitation a coating layer comprising a phosphorous-containing compound on a surface of the lithium transition metal oxide (claim 11), wherein the phosphorous-containing compound comprises a compound represented by Formula 5: LiaPbOc wherein 0<a1≤3, 0<b≤1, 0<c≤4 (claim 12), or wherein the coating layer is arranged to cover at least a portion of the lithium transition metal oxide (claim 13).
In a similar field of endeavor, Myung teaches a cathode active material can include a lithium-transition metal oxide such as one that includes materials such as Ni, Co, Mn, Ti, Mg (P34-35). Myung teaches the surface of the cathode active material may be coated with a lithium phosphate layer to protect the cathode material without interfering with the movement of lithium ions (P42).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Myung and provided to the positive active material of modified Sun a coating layer comprising a lithium phosphate compound on a surface of the lithium transition metal oxide, given Myung teaches this can protect the cathode material without interfering with the movement of lithium ions.
Lithium phosphate has a known formula of Li3PO4, therefore, meets Formula 5. Further, given the coating layer is on a surface of the lithium transition metal oxide, the coating layer would be arranged to cover at least a portion of the lithium transition metal oxide.
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 Mary Harris whose telephone number is (571)272-0690. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571)272-1481. 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.
/M.G.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights