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 January 27, 2026:
Claims 1-5, 12 and 14-15 are pending. Claims 6-11 and 13 have been cancelled as per applicant’s request.
The core of the previous rejection is maintained with slight changes made in light of the amendment. All changes to the rejection are necessitated by the amendment.
Claims 1, 4-5, 12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma et al. (US 2013/0202953) in view of Hong et al. (US 2020/0136132) and Kanada et al. (US 2018/0309124).
Regarding Claim 1, Sharma et al. teaches a positive electrode material (i.e. positive electrode active material) for a lithium ion battery (Para. [0020]) comprising a multiphase lithium metal oxide comprising Ni, Mn, cobalt and metal dopant (i.e. a lithium metal oxide particle comprising lithium, nickel, cobalt, manganese and a doping element) with a composite crystal structure with layered-layered-spinel domains (i.e. a first domain and a second domain exist inside the lithium metal oxide particle)(Para. [0047]) a dopant element includes Zr, Al, Ti and B or combinations thereof (Para. [0048], lines 31-35) and the dopant metal comprises up to about 2 percent of the non-lithium metal (Para. [0030]) (i.e. the doping amount of the Zr, Al, Ti and B, respectively is up to about 2 mol% based on 100 mol% of nickel, cobalt, manganese and doping elements, overlapping with the claimed doping amount ranges of Zr is 0.2 mol% to 0.5 mol%, Al is 0.5 mol% to 1.2 mol%, Ti is 0.05 mol% to 0.13 mol% and B is 0.25 mol% to 1.25 mol%, based on 100 mol% of nickel, cobalt, manganese and doping elements). A reference disclosure can anticipate a claim when the reference describes the limitations but "'d[oes] not expressly spell out' the limitations as arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed arrangement or combination." See MPEP 2131.02(III).
Sharma et al. does not teach a crystal grain size of the lithium metal oxide particle is in the range of 127 nm to 139 nm.
However, Hong et al. teaches the cathode active material has an average particle diameter of the primary particle of about 50 nm to about 200 nm (Para. [0075]) (i.e. a crystal grain size of the lithium metal oxide particle overlapping with the claimed range of 127 nm to 139 nm).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the crystal grain size of Sharma et al. to incorporate the teaching of the crystal grain size as taught by Hong et al. as such an average particle diameter as such grain sizes provide a cathode active material with improved cycle characteristics and thermal stability (Para. [0074], [0075]). 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(I).
Sharma et al. does not teach when measuring an X-ray diffraction pattern of the positive electrode active material for the lithium secondary battery, I(003)/I(104), which is the ratio of the peak intensity of plane (003) to the peak intensity of plane (104) is in the range of 1.210 to 1.230
However, Kanada et al. teaches a lithium nickel containing composite oxide as a cathode active material (Para. [0011]) for a lithium secondary battery (Para. [0030]) having a peak intensity ratio of (003) plane with respect to (104) plane that are obtained by X-ray powder diffraction (i.e. when measuring the X-ray diffraction pattern of the positive electrode active material for the lithium secondary battery, the ratio of the peak intensity of the plane (003) to the peak intensity of the plane (104) is 1.2 or more (Para. [0012]) (i.e. overlapping with the claimed I(003)/I(104) range of 1.210 to 1.230).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sharma et al. to incorporate the teaching of a crystal structure having such a ratio of the peak intensity of plane (003) to the peak intensity of the plane (104), as the crystal structure at this ratio becomes less disrupted (Para. [0058]) preventing deterioration of characteristics such as charging and discharging capacity (Para. [0097]). 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(I). 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(I).
The limitation specifying how the crystal grain size is measured (i.e. as determined by FWHM of the (003) diffraction peak obtained from the XRD analysis using Cu-Kα radiation and calculated using the Scherrer equation) is describing a process in which the crystal grain size is measured and does not change the underlying properties of the lithium metal oxide particle. Any lithium metal oxide particle with the claimed crystal grain size will have the same crystal grain size, if measured with the same process. Thus, the limitations of claim 1 are met.
Regarding Claim 4, Sharma et al. as modified by Hong et al. and Kanada et al. teach all of the elements of the current invention of claim 1 as explained above.
Sharma et al. further teaches the lithium metal oxide composition comprises a layered domain (Para. [0047]) (i.e. wherein the first domain contains a layered structure).
Regarding Claim 5, Sharma et al. as modified by Hong et al. and Kanada et al. teach all of the elements of the current invention of claim 1 as explained above.
Sharma et al. further teaches the lithium metal oxide composition comprises a spinel domain (Para. [0047]) (i.e. wherein the second domain contains a cubic structure).
Regarding Claim 12, Sharma et al. as modified by Hong et al. and Kanada et al. teach all of the elements of the current invention of claim 1 as explained above.
Sharma et al. does not teach the content of nickel in the metal lithium metal oxide particle is 80 mol% or more.
However, Hong et al. teaches an amount of Ni included in the M may be about 78 mol% to about 90 mol% based on a total transition metal content of the first lithium transition metal oxide (Para. [0089]) (i.e. a content of the nickel in the metal in the lithium metal oxide particle is about 78 mol% to about 90 mol%, overlapping with the claimed range of 80 mol% or more).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the content of nickel in the lithium metal oxide particle of Sharma et al. to incorporate the teaching of a content of the nickel in the metal in the lithium metal oxide particle is about 78 mol% to about 90 mol%, as a high capacity may be obtain thus providing a high capacity lithium battery (Para. [0043]). 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(I).
Regarding Claim 14, Sharma et al. as modified by Hong et al. and Kanada et al. teach all of the elements of the current invention of claim 1 as explained above.
Sharma et al. further teaches an R-factor for the lithium metal oxide wherein the R factor has been defined as the ratio of scattering intensities (i.e. the ratio of peak intensities) of [I006+I102]/I101 of at least about 0.29 (Para. [0050]) (overlapping with the claimed range of Equation 1 of 0.510 to 0.524). 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(I).
Regarding Claim 15, Sharma et al. as modified by Hong et al. and Kanada et al. teach all of the elements of the current invention of claim 1 as explained above.
Sharma et al. further teaches a lithium ion battery comprising a positive electrode comprising the positive electrode active material of claim 1, a negative electrode (Para. [0066]) a non-aqueous electrolyte solution (Para. [0021]) (i.e. and a non-aqueous electrolyte).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma et al. (US 2013/0202953) in view of Hong et al. (US 2020/0136132) and Kanada et al. (US 2018/0309124) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tokuno et al. (JP2005/251716A). The English machine translation of Tokuno et al. is attached in a prior Office Action and is referenced below.
Regarding Claim 2, Sharma et al. as modified by Hong et al. and Kanada et al. teach all of the elements of the current invention of claim 1 as explained above.
Sharma et al. does not teach the lithium metal oxide particle consists of a secondary particle including primary particles.
However, Tokuno et al. teaches a positive electrode active material comprising a lithium transition metal composite oxide in the form of particles consisting of secondary particles which are aggregates of primary particles (Para. [0010]) (i.e. the lithium metal oxide particle consists of a secondary particle including primary particles).
The combination of the form of lithium metal oxide particles consisting of secondary particles which are aggregates of primary particles as taught by Tokuno et al, with the lithium metal oxide particles as taught by Sharma et al. would yield the predictable result of providing a positive electrode active material formed of a lithium metal oxide particle (see Tokuno et al. – Para. [0010] & Sharma et al. – Para. [0047]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to combine the form of lithium metal oxide particles consisting of secondary particles which are aggregates of primary particles as taught by Tokuno et al, with the lithium metal oxide particles as taught by Sharma et al., as the combination would yield the predictable result of providing a positive electrode active material formed of a lithium metal oxide particle (see Tokuno et al. – Para. [0010] & Sharma et al. – Para. [0047]). The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding Claim 3, Sharma et al. as modified by Hong et al., Kanada et al. and Tokuno et al. teach all of the elements of the current invention of claim 2 as explained above.
Hong et al. further teaches the primary particles include a Ni-based first lithium transition metal oxide comprising nickel (Para. [0040]) wherein the first lithium transition metal oxide includes at least one of a first layered structure crystal phase belonging to the C2/m space (i.e. a first domain) and a second layered structure crystal phase belonging to the R-3m space group (Para. [0087]) (i.e. each of the primary particles contains the first domain and the second domain).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified positive electrode active material of Sharma et al. to incorporate the teaching of each of the primary particles contains the first domain and the second domain, as taught by Hong et al., as such composite primary particles provides improved cycle characteristics and thermal stability (para. [0095]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues significant effects are achieved with the claimed ranges and Sharma merely discloses 2% or less in general terms and fails to disclose the specific four-element combination or their respective content ranges and thus, the amended claims are patentable.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that significant effects are achieved the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Regarding the teachings of Sharma, A reference disclosure can anticipate a claim when the reference describes the limitations but "'d[oes] not expressly spell out' the limitations as arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed arrangement or combination." See MPEP 2131.02(III). As Sharma explicitly lists Zn, Al, Ti and B as doping elements and (Para. [0048]) and up to about 2 percent (Para. [0032]) , a personal of ordinary skill in the art could at once envisage the combination of the four-elements (see also Para. [0032] -- lines 7-8 of Sharma which teaches M is a combination of dopant metal elements and Para. [0048] -- lines 31-35 which teaches Zn, Al, Ti, B and combinations thereof) wherein the respective elements have an amount of up to 2 percent. Thus, the argument is not persuasive and the rejection of record is maintained.
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 ARMINDO CARVALHO JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-5292. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30a.m.-5p.m..
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.
/ARMINDO CARVALHO JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729