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 .
Summary
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments submitted October 29, 2025 have been entered into the file. Currently, claims 2-3 are cancelled, claims 9 and 12 are amended, and claims 5-7 and 15-18 are withdrawn from consideration, resulting in claims 1, 4 and 8-14 pending for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 or 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 9-11, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Nishino (JP2015144108A, English translation used for citations).
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Nishino teaches a positive electrode active material (title) comprising lithium, cobalt, nickel, magnesium, and oxygen (lithium-containing composite oxide, Li1.00Co0.90Ni0.08Al0.01Mg0.01O1.995F0.01, Example 36, pg. 14).
Nishino is silent regarding the a-axis and c-axis lattice constants of the inner portion and outermost surface layer of the positive electrode active material (Li1.00Co0.90Ni0.08Al0.01Mg0.01O1.995F0.01 without surface modification).
It is reasonable to presume that the a-axis and c-axis lattice constants of an outermost surface layer being larger than those of an inner portion (instant claim 1), 0.05<RA≤0.07, 0.09<RC≤0.12 (instant claim 1), and the difference between the c-axis lattice constant of the outermost surface layer and the c-axis lattice constant of the inner portion being larger than the difference between the a-axis lattice constant of the outermost surface layer and the a-axis lattice constant of the inner portion (instant claim 4) are inherent to the positive electrode active material of Nishino. Support for said presumption is found in that Nishino and the instant specification disclose a method for fabricating the positive electrode active material comprising the steps of mixing precursors and heat treating in an oxygen-containing atmosphere (Nishino pg. 9 Example 1 method is used for fabricating the positive electrode active material of Example 36 on pg. 14, “mixed powder was fired”, “firing atmosphere is preferably performed in an oxygen-containing atmosphere” pg. 7; instant specification Fig. 11 “mixing” and “annealing”, “in Step 43, the mixture 903 is heated in an atmosphere containing oxygen” [271]), wherein the precursor powders include Li, Co, Ni, Al, Mg, and F (Nishino Example 36 pg. 14; instant specification Fig. 11). Nishino teaches the heat treatment being at 1010°C (Nishino pg. 9 Example 1 method), which is within the ranges disclosed in the instant specification (instant specification [278] “the annealing temperature is preferably higher than or equal to 500°C and lower than or equal to 1130°C).
Therefore, the positive electrode active material of expected to have the same properties of the claimed invention. 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. See MPEP 2112.01. Alternatively, since Nishino and the instant specification disclose comparable method steps and precursor powders, the invention of Nishino would obviously result in the properties of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 9, Nishino teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Nishino does not expressly teach the outermost surface layer and inner portion comprising bright spots indicating a rock-salt crystal structure.
It is reasonable to presume that the outermost surface layer comprising a region in which bright spots indicating a rock- salt crystal structure belonging to a space group Fm-3m or Fd-3m are observed and bright spots indicating a layered rock-salt crystal structure belonging to a space group R-3m are observed in a nanobeam electron diffraction pattern, and the inner portion comprising a region in which bright spots indicating the layered rock-salt crystal structure belonging to the space group R-3m are observed in a nanobeam electron diffraction pattern are inherent to the positive electrode active material of Nishino. Support for said presumption is found in that Nishino and the instant specification disclose a method for fabricating the positive electrode active material comprising the steps of mixing precursors and heat treating in an oxygen-containing atmosphere (Nishino pg. 9 Example 1 method is used for fabricating the positive electrode active material of Example 36 on pg. 14, “mixed powder was fired”, “firing atmosphere is preferably performed in an oxygen-containing atmosphere” pg. 7; instant specification Fig. 11 “mixing” and “annealing”, “in Step 43, the mixture 903 is heated in an atmosphere containing oxygen” [271]), wherein the precursor powders include Li, Co, Ni, Al, Mg, and F (Nishino Example 36 pg. 14; instant specification Fig. 11). Nishino teaches the heat treatment being at 1010°C (Nishino pg. 9 Example 1 method), which is within the ranges disclosed in the instant specification (instant specification [278] “the annealing temperature is preferably higher than or equal to 500°C and lower than or equal to 1130°C).
Therefore, the positive electrode active material of expected to have the same properties of the claimed invention. 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. See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claim 10, Nishino teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Nishino is silent regarding spin density attributed to a divalent nickel ion, a trivalent nickel ion, a divalent cobalt ion, and a tetravalent cobalt ion.
It is reasonable to presume that a spin density attributed to any one or more of a divalent nickel ion, a trivalent nickel ion, a divalent cobalt ion, and a tetravalent cobalt ion being higher than or equal to 2.0 x 1017 spins/g and lower than or equal to 1.0 x 1021 spins/g is inherent to the positive electrode active material of Nishino. Support for said presumption is found in that Nishino and the instant specification disclose a method for fabricating the positive electrode active material comprising the steps of mixing precursors and heat treating in an oxygen-containing atmosphere (Nishino pg. 9 Example 1 method is used for fabricating the positive electrode active material of Example 36 on pg. 14, “mixed powder was fired”, “firing atmosphere is preferably performed in an oxygen-containing atmosphere” pg. 7; instant specification Fig. 11 “mixing” and “annealing”, “in Step 43, the mixture 903 is heated in an atmosphere containing oxygen” [271]), wherein the precursor powders include Li, Co, Ni, Al, Mg, and F (Nishino Example 36 pg. 14; instant specification Fig. 11). Nishino teaches the heat treatment being at 1010°C (Nishino pg. 9 Example 1 method), which is within the ranges disclosed in the instant specification (instant specification [278] “the annealing temperature is preferably higher than or equal to 500°C and lower than or equal to 1130°C).
Therefore, the positive electrode active material of expected to have the same properties of the claimed invention. 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. See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claim 11, Nishino teaches all features of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches the positive electrode active material comprising aluminum, and wherein an aluminum concentration is greater than or equal to 0.05 % and less than or equal to 4 % of a cobalt concentration in an entire positive electrode active material (Li1.00 Co0.90 Ni0.08 Al0.01 Mg0.01O1.995F0.01, Example 36, pg. 14,
0.01
0.90
x
100
=
1.1
%
)
.
Regarding claim 13, Nishino teaches a positive electrode active material comprising lithium, cobalt, nickel, magnesium, and oxygen. As described above for instant claim 1, an a-axis lattice constant of an outermost surface layer being larger than that of an inner portion and a c-axis lattice constant of an outermost surface layer being larger than that of an inner portion are inherent to the positive electrode active material of Nishino. Nishino further teaches a lithium-ion secondary battery comprising the positive electrode active material (“battery performance evaluation” Example 36, title recites “for lithium ion secondary battery”).
Regarding claim 14, Nishino teaches all features of claim 13, as described above. Nishino further teaches that “with the rapid development of information-related equipment and communication equipment such as personal computers and mobile phones, there is an increasing demand for non-aqueous electrolyte secondary batteries such as lithium secondary batteries” with desired properties (pg. 2, Description paragraph 2). Nishino teaches that their invention results in lithium ion secondary batteries with “excellent in cycle durability and safety during high-voltage charging”.
Nishino does not expressly teach an embodiment wherein an electronic device comprising the lithium ion secondary battery of Nishino.
Since Nishino teaches a lithium-ion secondary battery, as described for instant claim 13, and that electronic devices such as computers and mobile phones comprise lithium ion secondary batteries, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fabricate a computer or mobile phone comprising the lithium-ion secondary battery of Nishino, in order to obtain a computer or mobile phone with desired cycle durability and safety characteristics.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishino in view of Kim (US 2020/0259173 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Nishino teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Nishino is silent regarding the nickel concentration in the outermost surface layer and does not teach a nickel concentration being greater than or equal to 0.05% and less than or equal to 4% of a cobalt concentration in an entire positive electrode active material (Li1.00 Co0.90 Ni0.08 Al0.01 Mg0.01O1.995F0.01, Example 36, pg. 14,
0.08
0.90
x
100
=
8.9
%
)
.
Kim teaches that positive electrode active materials with high nickel content have decreased structural, chemical, and thermal stability (Kim [6]). Kim further teaches a nickel concentration gradient to overcome the decreases in stability and improve performance of the positive electrode active material, wherein the concentration of nickel decreases toward the surface of the positive electrode active material particle (Kim [9-11]).
Since Kim teaches that it is known that having a nickel content that is too high can result in decreased structural, chemical, and thermal stability and that having a nickel gradient can help alleviate these effects, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form a concentration gradient in the positive electrode active material of Nishino and tune the amount of nickel precursor added during synthesis, including amounts that result in positive electrode active materials wherein a nickel concentration in the outermost surface layer is lower than that of the inner portion, including concentrations less than or equal to 1 atomic %, and a nickel concentration is greater than or equal to 0.05% and less than or equal to 4% of a cobalt concentration in an entire positive electrode active material, in order to obtain a positive electrode active material with suitable stability and performance for a desired battery application.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishino in view of Jo (US 2020/0220173 A1) and Liang (Liang, Y. et al. Synthesis and electrochemical characterization of Mg-Al co-doped Li-rich Mn-based cathode materials. New Journal of Chemistry. 43, 12004-12012. 2 July 2019).
Regarding claim 12, Nishino teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Nishino does not teach a peak of the aluminum concentration positioned at a depth of greater than or equal to 5 nm and less than or equal to 30 nm toward a center from a surface by energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy on a cross section of the positive electrode active material.
Jo teaches a positive electrode active material for a secondary battery comprising a doping element at a higher concentration at the surface of the particles, resulting in a concentration gradient, in order to improve surface stability (Jo [21]). Jo further teaches a positive electrode active material that contains an aluminum concentration gradient (Jo [102] “additionally doped with Al”).
Jo teaches that performing a second heat treatment step with an Al or Mg precursor results in an Al-or Mg-doped surface (Jo Examples 1-2 [102-1003]), wherein the doping element (Al or Mg) “exhibits a concentration gradient in which the concentration of the doping element is gradually decreased form the particle surface toward the core” (Jo [109]).
Liang teaches a positive electrode active material comprising co-doping of Mg and Al and having improved cycling stability (Liang abstract).
Since Jo teaches that dopants such as Al and Mg may be added to positive electrode active materials in the form of a gradient to improve surface stability and Liang teaches a positive electrode active material co-doped with Mg and Al to improve cycling stability, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to tune the fabrication method of the positive electrode active material of Nishino to obtain a positive electrode active material comprising both Al and Mg gradients, including methods that result in a peak of the aluminum concentration positioned at a depth of greater than or equal to 5 nm and less than or equal to 30 nm toward a center from a surface by energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy on a cross section of the positive electrode active material, in order to obtain a positive electrode active material with suitable surface and cycling stability for a desired battery application.
Response to Arguments
Response – Claim Objections
The objection to claim 12 due to informalities is overcome by applicant’s amendments to claim 12 in the response received October 29, 2025. The objection to claim 12 is withdrawn.
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC § 112
Upon further review and consideration, the rejections of claims 1, 4, and 8-14 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement are withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention is overcome by applicant’s amendments to claim 9 in the response received October 29, 2025. This rejection of claim 9 is withdrawn.
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC § 102 and 103
Applicant’s arguments filed October 29, 2025 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
On pages 9-10 of the response, applicant appears to allege that Nishino does not describe or suggest the lattice constants and rate of change values recited in claim 1. On page 10, applicant appears to allege that the conditions required for inherency are not met due to Nishino performing surface modification.
The inherency rejections of independent claim 1 in the Non-Final Office Action dated July 1, 2025 refer to the lithium composition oxide before surface modification, which is the lithium-containing composite oxide base material in Nishino Example 36. The method described in the Non-Final Office Action (Office Action paragraphs 42-43) includes the steps of mixing precursors and heat treating in an oxygen-containing atmosphere, wherein the precursor powders include Li, Co, Ni, Al, Mg, and F sources, and does not include the surface modification step.
It is noted that, although the Office Action referred to the base material before surface modification, in the case that the surface modification was included, applicant has not provided evidence that the surface modification would result in the lattice constants and resulting rate of change values being outside the claimed ranges. It is additionally noted that claim 1 does not exclude surface modification, rather claim 1 requires the presence of lithium, cobalt, nickel, magnesium, and oxygen and the satisfaction of the limitations associated with the a-axis and c-axis lattice constants.
Response – Restriction
On pages 11-12 of the response received October 29, 2025, applicant requests withdrawal of the restriction because “the technical features identified by the restriction requirement are “special technical features” satisfying the unity of invention standard”.
This is not found persuasive because Groups I and II lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of a-axis and c-axis lattice constants of an outermost surface layer being larger than those of an inner portion, 0.05<RA≤0.07, and 0.09<RC≤0.12, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Nishino (JP2015144108A).
Nishino teaches a positive electrode active material (title) comprising lithium, cobalt, nickel, magnesium, and oxygen (lithium-containing composite oxide, Li1.00Co0.90Ni0.08Al0.01Mg0.01O1.995F0.01, Example 36, pg. 14).
Nishino is silent regarding the a-axis and c-axis lattice constants of the inner portion and outermost surface layer of the positive electrode active material (Li1.00Co0.90Ni0.08Al0.01Mg0.01O1.995F0.01 without surface modification).
It is reasonable to presume that the a-axis and c-axis lattice constants of an outermost surface layer being larger than those of an inner portion, 0.05<RA≤0.07, and 0.09<RC≤0.12 are inherent to the positive electrode active material of Nishino. Support for said presumption is found in that Nishino and the instant specification disclose a method for fabricating the positive electrode active material comprising the steps of mixing precursors and heat treating in an oxygen-containing atmosphere (Nishino pg. 9 Example 1 method is used for fabricating the positive electrode active material of Example 36 on pg. 14, “mixed powder was fired”, “firing atmosphere is preferably performed in an oxygen-containing atmosphere” pg. 7; instant specification Fig. 11 “mixing” and “annealing”, “in Step 43, the mixture 903 is heated in an atmosphere containing oxygen” [271]), wherein the precursor powders include Li, Co, Ni, Al, Mg, and F (Nishino Example 36 pg. 14; instant specification Fig. 11). Nishino teaches the heat treatment being at 1010°C (Nishino pg. 9 Example 1 method), which is within the ranges disclosed in the instant specification (instant specification [278] “the annealing temperature is preferably higher than or equal to 500°C and lower than or equal to 1130°C).
Therefore, the positive electrode active material of expected to have the same properties of the claimed invention. 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. See MPEP 2112.01.
The restriction requirement is maintained and claims 5-7 and 15-18 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Conclusion
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tan (US 2017/0317344 A1): appears to disclose a positive electrode material having a concentration gradient and core-shell structure (abstract).
Kawakami (US 2018/0102536 A1): appears to disclose a positive electrode active material comprising a first region and a second region, wherein the first region includes lithium, a transition metal, and oxygen, and the second region includes magnesium, fluorine, and oxygen.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA S CASERTO whose telephone number is (571)272-5114. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 5 pm ET.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/J.S.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789