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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 27, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received May 27, 2026:
Claims 1, 12 and 14-15 are pending. Claims 2-11 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 in view of Ohzuku et al. (US 2008/0032199).
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.
Claims 1, 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), Kanada et al. (US 2018/0309124), Tokuno et al. (JP2005/251716A) and Ohzuku et al. (US 2008/0032199).
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.
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.).
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).
Sharma et al. does not teach wherein each of the primary particles contains the first domain and the second domain wherein the second domain contains a cubic structure, not a spinel structure.
However, Ohzuku et al. teaches a positive electrode active material comprising a lithium-containing composite oxide including at least nickel and manganese (Para. [0011]) and cobalt (Para. [0020]) wherein the composite oxide has a layered crystal structure and the arrangement of oxygen atoms is cubic close-packed structure in the primary particle (Para. [0054]) (i.e. each of the primary particles contains the first domain and the second domain wherein the second domain contains a cubic structure, not a spinel structure).
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 primary particle of Sharma et al. to incorporate the teaching of the composite oxide has a layered crystal structure and the arrangement of oxygen atoms is cubic close-packed structure in the primary particle as taught by Ohzuku et al., as such a primary particle crystal structure provides a more excellent function (Para. [0055]) such as higher capacity and more excellent cycle life (Para. [0082]).
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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed May 27, 2026 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of the references being used in the current rejection in light of the amendment.
Applicant’s arguments are drawn to a previous prior art combination and thus, are not persuasive in light of the newly cited prior art.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights