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
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments submitted on June 26th, 2026 have been entered into the file. Currently claim 1 is amended and claim 4 is new, resulting in claims 1-4 pending for examination.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed June 26th, 2026 have been entered.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugaya (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20160006029 A1) in view of Yamauchi (Japanese Patent Publication No. 2018142402 A).
Regarding claim 1, Sugaya teaches a positive electrode active material for non-aqueous electrolyte secondary batteries (Paragraph 0008), including:
a lithium metal composite oxide (lithium transition metal oxide) having secondary (base) particles, each of which is formed by aggregating primary particles (Paragraphs 0008, 0018).
Sugaya teaches the positive electrode active material particles made from the lithium metal composite oxide comprising at least W, therefore W may be present on the surface of the primary particles (Figure 2, Element 33a) and the surface of the secondary particles (base particle, Figure 2, Element 33) (Paragraph 0019). Therefore, Sugaya teaches the instant claimed limitation of W present on a surface of the secondary particles and inside the secondary particles of the lithium metal composite oxide particles.
Sugaya teaches the lithium metal composite oxide represented by the formula LixNiaCobMncAl(1-y-a-b)WyO2 where:
0.9 < x < 1.2
0.001 ≦ y ≦ 0.01
0.30 ≦ a ≦ 0.95
0 ≦ b ≦ 0.50
a – c > 0.03 (Paragraph 0021).
The following equivalences between the elements and their subscript variables is denoted in the table below, where the underline denotes an inclusive boundary of a range:
Element in Formula of Sugaya
Subscript of Formula of Sugaya
Subscript Range of Formula of Sugaya
Element of Instant Compositional Formula
Subscript of Instant Compositional Formula
Subscript Range of Instant Compositional Formula
Li
x
0.9 – 1.2
Li
α
0.9 – 1.2
Ni
a
0.30 – 0.95
Ni
a
0.8 – 0.96
Co
b
0 - 0.50
Co
b
0 – 0.10
Al
1-y-a-b
0 – 0.7
Al
c
0 – 0.10
Mn
c
0 – 0.27
M = Mn
d
0 – 0.1
W
y
0.001 – 0.01
W
e
0.00024 - 0.0025
O
2
2
O
β
1.9 - 2
As is illustrated in the table above, the subscripts of the elements in formula of Sugaya overlap the range of the subscripts of the elements in the instant compositional formula. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
In the formula taught by Sugaya, the subscript of the aluminum atom 1-y-a-b is equated with the subscript of the aluminum atom in the instant formula, c. The bounds of the subscript of aluminum, 1-y-a-b are calculated by evaluating 1-y-a-b at the minimum and maximum values of y, a, and b.
when y+a+b=1
1-y-a-b= 1 – 1 = 0
when y=0.001, a=0.30, and b=0
1-y-a-b= 1 – 0.001 – 0.30 – 0. = 0.7
Thus, Sugaya teaches the subscript of aluminum lies between 0 and 0.7. The range of the subscript 1-y-a-b of aluminum of Sugaya overlaps the claimed ranges of the subscript c of aluminum in the instant claim 1. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
When the placeholder M of the instant formula is manganese, it has a subscript d assigned to it, which is equated with the subscript c of manganese of the formula of Sugaya. The range of c of manganese of Sugaya overlaps with the range of manganese (when M=Mn) d of the instant claim. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
In this formula taught by Sugaya, the subscript of the tungsten atom y is equated with the subscript of the tungsten atom in the instant formula, e. Sugaya teaches that y may be between 0.001 and 0.01 (Paragraph 0021), while the instant application claims that (e/(a+b+c+d+e)) is between 0.0003 and 0.002.
When the minimum values of the instant application’s a, b, c, and d subscripts are selected, e is found to be between 0.00024 and 0.0025. To arrive at this solution, the minimum values of b, c, and d subscripts of the formula were assumed to be extremely small and for the purposes of solving, negligible in the denominator of e/(a+b+c+d+e). When the maximum values of the instant application’s a, b, c, and d subscripts are selected (0.96, 0.1, 0.1, and 0.1, respectively), e is found to be between 0.00038 and 0.0025. When the above ranges at the minimum and maximum values of a, b, c, and d are considered together, the range of possible values of e specified by the instant application is as follows: 0.00024 ≤ e ≤ 0.0025.
The range of the subscript y of tungsten of Sugaya overlaps the claimed ranges of the subscript e of tungsten in the instant claim 1, as calculated above. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
As described above, because Sugaya teaches the lithium transition metal oxide of the positive electrode active material particles containing at least tungsten, Sugaya teaches tungsten is present on the surface of the primary particle and on the surface of the secondary particle. As seen above in the compositional formula of Sugaya, tungsten and oxygen are present in the lithium transition metal oxide which makes up the primary and secondary particles of Sugaya. Therefore, at least some portion of the tungsten present within the secondary particles (on the surface of the primary particles) and on the surface of the secondary particles is present is in the form of tungsten oxide, or it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan to provide W in these locations in the form of tungsten oxide.
In the alternative, if Sugaya is found to not explicitly teach W is present on the surface of the secondary particles and inside the secondary particles in the form of tungsten oxide, it is reasonable to presume that W as tungsten oxide in the aforementioned locations is inherent to Sugaya.
Support for said presumption is found in that Sugaya teaches tungsten is added to the positive electrode active material by mixing WO3 into the transition metal oxide composition after washing (Paragraph 0055). The instant disclosure provides that W raw material in the form of WO3, is added to the metal composite oxide composition which spreads over the surface and inside the secondary particles (Page 11, Lines 20-27). Thus, similar to the instant disclosure, Sugaya teaches tungsten in the form of WO3 added to the lithium transition metal oxide composite particles. Therefore, the lithium metal composite oxide particles of Sugaya are expected to have the same properties of the claimed invention, namely W present in the form of tungsten oxide present on the surface of the secondary particles and inside the secondary particles.
Sugaya teaches the claimed invention above but does not expressly teach a proportion of W present on the surface of the secondary particles of the lithium metal composite oxide is 25% to 45% of a total amount of W present on the surface of the secondary particles and inside the secondary particles of the lithium metal composite oxide.
However, Yamauchi discloses a positive electrode active material comprising a lithium metal composite oxide secondary particles formed by aggregating primary particles, with tungsten added to the positive electrode active material to coat the particles (Paragraphs 12-14). Yamauchi teaches that in conventional production methods, tungsten is unevenly distributed on the surface of the secondary particles or the surface of the primary particles inside the secondary particles. Yamauchi teaches the discloses production method to uniformly disperse tungsten in the positive electrode active material particles by controlling firing temperature (Paragraph 26). Yamauchi teaches when the firing temperature exceeds 900 ºC, tungsten inside the particles concentrates on the surface of the secondary particles, which is undesirable as excess tungsten on the surface of the secondary particles leads to elution of tungsten from the particles, resulting in a decrease in long-term stability (Paragraphs 54, 91). 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 modified Sugaya to incorporate the teachings of Yamauchi in which the firing conditions are tuned in order to optimize the distribution of tungsten between the surface of the primary particles (inside the secondary particles) and the surface of the secondary particles so that less tungsten concentrates on the surface of the secondary particles. Doing so would result in improved output characteristics and battery capacity, as recognized by Yamauchi (Paragraph 54).
Absent unexpected results, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the firing temperature of the tungsten-coated lithium metal composite oxide particles since it has been held that where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. In the present invention one would have been motivated to optimize the firing temperature of the particles to lower the concentration of tungsten on the surface of the secondary particles, including to a concentration within the claimed range of 25% to 45%, in order to reduce tungsten elution and increase long-term stability of the electrode material.
Regarding claim 2, Sugaya teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery (Figure 1, Element 10) comprising a positive electrode (Figure 1, Element 12) including the positive electrode active material (Figure 1, Element 31) for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary batteries according to claim 1, a negative electrode (Figure 1, Element 13), and a non-aqueous electrolyte (Paragraphs 0013).
Regarding claim 4, Sugaya teaches the positive electrode active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 1.
As discussed above, Sugaya teaches the lithium metal composite oxide represented by the formula LixNiaCobMncAl(1-y-a-b)WyO2. However, Sugaya teaches that generally, the lithium transition metal oxide of the disclosure may be represented by the compositional formula LixM1-yWyO2, where 0.9 < x < 1.2 and 0.001 ≤ y ≤ 0.01. Sugaya teaches that M represents at least one type of element selected from the group consisting of Ni, Co, Mn, and Al, and at least one metal element of Mg, Ga, Ge, Ti, Sr, Y, Zr, Nb, Mo, and Ta may be contained in addition to the above-described metal elements, such as Ni (Paragraph 0020).
Therefore, Sugaya indicates that metals such as Mg, Ga, Ge, Ti, Sr, Y, Zr, Nb, Mo, and Ta are intended to be used in combination with metals such as Ni, Co, Mn, and Al in the lithium transition metal oxide. Given the specific formula LixNiaCobMncAl(1-y-a-b)WyO2 described above and considering the teachings of Sugaya recited above, the ordinary artisan would recognize that Sugaya is open to the inclusion of metals (Mg, Ga, Ge, Ti, Sr, Y, Zr, Nb, Mo, and or Ta) in addition to the metal elements Ni, Co, Mn, and Al appearing in the formula.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the formula for the transition metal oxide of Sugaya, LixNiaCobMncAl(1-y-a-b)WyO2, to incorporate the teachings where metal elements such as Mg, Ga, Ge, Ti, Sr, Y, Zr, Nb, Mo, and Ta are included in the compositional formula. Doing so is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill, as Sugaya outlines in the disclosure that it is intended to include these metals in combination with each other. The ordinary artisan would recognize that in order to preserve the mole balance of the compositional formula, to incorporate the additional metal elements Mg, Ga, Ge, Ti, Sr, Y, Zr, Nb, Mo, and Ta for M, any one of Ni, Co, Mn, or Al in the compositional formula may be substituted (as these are also metal elements M defined by Sugaya, as described above).
Therefore, given the general teachings of Sugaya, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute manganese in the formula LixNiaCobMncAl(1-y-a-b)WyO2 for any one of Ti, Zr, Nb, and or Mo because Sugaya teaches that metal elements (Mg, Ga, Ge, Ti, Sr, Y, Zr, Nb, Mo, and Ta) may be used in addition to element such as nickel, cobalt, manganese, and aluminum. The substitution would have been obvious to try and would have been one known element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful as a lithium transition metal oxide in the positive electrode active material of a battery and possess the benefits of improved cycle characteristics taught by Sugaya. See MPEP § 2143.I.(B).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugaya in view of Yamauchi as applied to claims 1-2, 4 above, further in view of Aihara (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20200403238 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Sugaya teaches the positive electrode active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 1.
As discussed above, Sugaya teaches the lithium metal composite oxide represented by the formula LixNiaCobMncAl(1-y-a-b)WyO2 where:
0.9< x <1.2
0.001 ≦ y ≦ 0.01
0.30 ≦ a ≦ 0.95
0 ≦ b ≦ 0.50
a – c > 0.03 (Paragraph 0021)
and the range of each subscript in the formula was determined:
Element in Formula of Sugaya
Subscript of Formula of Sugaya
Subscript Range of Formula of Sugaya
Li
x
0.9 – 1.2
Ni
a
0.30 – 0.95
Co
b
0 - 0.50
Al
1-y-a-b
0 – 0.7
Mn
c
0 – 0.27
W
y
0.001 – 0.01
O
2
2
Therefore, the range of the molar fraction of W relative to a total number of moles of the metal elements excluding Li in the positive electrode active material taught by Sugaya can be calculated. By taking the ratio of the subscript of tungsten, y, to the sum of the subscripts of all the metal elements in the compositional formula excluding Li, namely nickel, cobalt, aluminum, manganese, and tungsten:
y
a
+
b
+
c
+
y
+
(
1
-
y
-
a
-
b
)
Which simplifies to:
y
c
+
1
Therefore, the upper and lower bound of the molar fraction of W relative to a total number of moles of the metal elements excluding Li in the positive electrode active material taught by Sugaya can be calculated as follows:
When y=0.001 and c=0.27
Molar fraction W: 0.001/(1+0.27) = 0.08%
When y=0.01 and c=0
Molar fraction W: 0.01/1 = 1%
Therefore, in the formula taught by Sugaya, the molar fraction of tungsten relative to a total number of moles of metal elements excluding Lin in the positive electrode active material is 0.08 to 1%. The range taught by Sugaya overlaps with that of the instant claim. Therefore, prima facie obviousness is established. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
However, further, Aihara discloses a cathode active material for the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery including a primary particles of lithium nickel complex oxide and secondary particles in which the primary particles are aggregated, and tungsten is disposed on the surfaces of the secondary particles and the surfaces of the internal primary particles (Paragraph 0020). Aihara teaches the ratio of the number of atoms of tungsten to the number of atoms of a non-lithium metal component contained in the coated lithium nickel complex oxide particles to be 0.01% or more and 3.0% or less (Paragraph 0044). Aihara teaches when the number of atoms of tungsten to 0.01% or more of the number of atoms of the metallic component other than lithium contained in the coated lithium nickel complex oxide particles, tungsten sufficiently covers the surface of the primary and secondary particles, leading to increased output characteristics (Paragraph 0047). Aihara teaches when the number of atoms of tungsten to 3.0% or less, tungsten is not excessively coated (Paragraph 0048).
Therefore, Aihara teaches it is advantageous for the molar fraction of W relative to the total number of moles of metal elements excluding Li in the positive electrode active material to be between 0.01% to 3%, which overlaps the instant claimed range. Thus, Aihara provides further evidence that it is known in the art to provide tungsten in a small molar amount relative to the other non-lithium metallic elements contained in the positive electrode active material in order to strike a balance between improved output characteristics and excessively coating the particles.
Claim 4 is alternately rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugaya in view of Yamauchi as applied to claims 1-2, 4 above, and further in view of Park (Korean Patent Publication No. 20150062252 A).
Regarding claim 4, Sugaya teaches the positive electrode active material for non-aqueous electrolyte secondary batteries according to claim 1.
As discussed above, Sugaya teaches the lithium metal composite oxide represented by the formula LixNiaCobMncAl(1-y-a-b)WyO2. Further discussed above, the placeholder M of the instant formula was equated with manganese in rejecting the instant formula as obvious over the prior art.
In the instance that Sugaya is found not to teach the instant claimed limitations of M is at least one element selected from the group consisting of Fe, Ti, Si, Nb, Zr, Mo, and Zn, an alternate rejection is presented below in view of Park:
Park discloses the composition of the positive electrode active material represented by Chemical Formula 1L LiaM1xM2yM3zM4wO2+δ, where M1, M2, M4 are respectively selected from Ni, Co, Al; and M4 is selected from the group consisting of Fe, Na, Mg, Ca, Ti, V, Cr, Cu, Zn, Ge, La, Ce, Ta, Sr, Mn, Ag, Ba, Zr, Nb, Mo, Ga, B, P, or a combination thereof, wherein 0.0003 < a < 1.1, 0 ≤ w ≤ 1, 0 ≤ y ≤ 1, 0 ≤ z ≤ 1, 0 ≤ w ≤ 0.1, 0 ≤ δ ≤ 0.02, 0.003 < x + y + z ≤ 1 (Pages 7-8).
Therefore, Park teaches that it is known in the art to include any of the elements Fe, Na, Mg, Ca, Ti, V, Cr, Cu, Zn, Ge, La, Ce, Ta, Sr, Mn, Ag, Ba, Zr, Nb, Mo, Ga, B, P, in addition to nickel, cobalt, and aluminum in a lithium transition metal oxide implemented in a positive electrode active material. The elements lithium, cobalt, nickel, aluminum, and oxygen are shared by Park and Sugaya, with the subscripts of these elements overlapping. While Sugaya teaches that manganese is used in addition to lithium, cobalt, nickel, aluminum, and oxygen, Park teaches that any one of Fe, Na, Mg, Ca, Ti, V, Cr, Cu, Zn, Ge, La, Ce, Ta, Sr, Mn, Ag, Ba, Zr, Nb, Mo, Ga, B, P may be used in addition to lithium, cobalt, nickel, aluminum, and oxygen in the positive electrode active material.
Therefore, given the general teachings of Park, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Fe, Ti, Nb, Zr, Mo, and or Zn for Mn of Sugaya because Park teaches that the metal used in addition to lithium, cobalt, nickel, aluminum, and oxygen in the compositional formula for a lithium transition metal oxide used in a positive electrode may suitably be selected as Fe, Ti, Nb, Zr, Mo, Zn, or Mn. The substitution would have been one known element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful as a lithium transition metal oxide in the positive electrode active material of a battery. See MPEP § 2143.I.(B).
Further, as discussed above, Sugaya discloses the possibility of including additional metals in addition to nickel, cobalt, and aluminum, and is therefore open to the aforementioned modification.
Claim 4 is alternately rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugaya in view of Yamauchi as applied to claims 1-2, 4 above, and further in view of Kajiyama (W.O. 2017170548 A1).
Sugaya teaches the positive electrode active material for non-aqueous electrolyte secondary batteries according to claim 1.
As discussed above, Sugaya teaches the lithium metal composite oxide represented by the formula LixNiaCobMncAl(1-y-a-b)WyO2. Further discussed above, the placeholder M of the instant formula was equated with manganese in rejecting the instant formula as obvious over the prior art.
In the instance that Sugaya is found not to teach the instant claimed limitations of M is at least one element selected from the group consisting of Fe, Ti, Si, Nb, Zr, Mo, and Zn, an alternate rejection is presented below in view of Kajiyama:
Kajiyama discloses a lithium transition metal oxide composed of secondary particles in which primary particles are agglomerated represented by the general formula Lia(NibCocAldMee)O2 (Me = Mn, Mg, Ti, Ru, Zr, Nb, Mo, W; 1.00 ≤ a ≤ 1.15, 0.25 < b < 1, 0 < c ≤ 0.30, 0 ≤ d ≤ 0.05, 0 ≤ e ≤ 0.40) (Paragraph 12). Kajiyama teaches that on the grain boundaries of the secondary particles and on the surface of the secondary particles a metal such as W is present (Paragraph 34), which is similar to the structure of Sugaya and the instant application.
Therefore, Kajiyama teaches that it is known in the art to include any of the elements Mn, Mg, Ti, Ru, Zr, Nb, Mo, W in addition to nickel, cobalt, and aluminum in a lithium transition metal oxide implemented in a positive electrode active material. The elements lithium, cobalt, nickel, aluminum, and oxygen are shared by Kajiyama and Sugaya, with the subscripts of these elements overlapping. While Sugaya teaches that manganese is used in addition to lithium, cobalt, nickel, aluminum, and oxygen, Kajiyama teaches that any one of Mn, Mg, Ti, Ru, Zr, Nb, Mo, W may be used in addition to lithium, cobalt, nickel, aluminum, and oxygen in the positive electrode active material.
Therefore, given the general teachings of Kajiyama, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Ti, Nb, Zr, or Mo for Mn of Sugaya because Kajiyama teaches that the metal used in addition to lithium, cobalt, nickel, aluminum, and oxygen in the compositional formula for a lithium transition metal oxide used in a positive electrode may suitably be selected as Mn, Mg, Ti, Ru, Zr, Nb, Mo, W. The substitution would have been one known element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful as a lithium transition metal oxide in the positive electrode active material of a battery. See MPEP § 2143.I.(B).
Further, as discussed above, Sugaya discloses the possibility of including additional metals in addition to nickel, cobalt, and aluminum, and is therefore open to the aforementioned modification.
Response to Arguments
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC § 103
In the remarks filed June 26th, 2026, applicant argues that Yamauchi teaches away from W distributed locally, or unevenly distributed, on the surface of the primary particles. Applicant argues that the adjustment of the distribution of W under the appropriate temperature rise rate and firing temperature in accordance with Yamauchi attempts to uniformly reduce the amount of W on the surfaces to the primary particles.
These arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner presents that, as argued by applicant, Yamauchi teaches it is desirable for the tungsten to be uniformly distributed in the secondary particles in order to improve output characteristics of the obtained secondary battery (Paragraph 23). Yamauchi teaches when the tungsten is unevenly distributed on the surface of the primary or secondary particles, the tungsten in the positive electrode active material is eluted during charge and discharge cycles of the battery (Paragraph 56). However, Yamauchi teaches that as shown in Figure 1, the tungsten is evenly distributed on the surface of the primary particles, which reduces resistance (Paragraph 35).
Therefore, the Examiner presents the Yamauchi teaches that tungsten is desirably evenly distributed on the surfaces of the primary particles. In reviewing the disclosure of Yamauchi, the Examiner does not find the conclusion drawn by applicant that adjustment of the firing temperature would result in the reduction of the amount of W on the surfaces of the primary particles. Yamauchi teaches that by controlling the firing temperature the tungsten can be uniformly dispersed on the surface of the secondary particles or the surface of the primary particle (Paragraph 26).
As set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed January 26th, 2026, the Examiner presents that:
Yamauchi teaches when the firing temperature exceeds 900 ºC, tungsten inside the particles concentrates on the surface of the secondary particles, which is undesirable as excess tungsten on the surface of the secondary particles leads to elution of tungsten from the particles, resulting in a decrease in long-term stability (Paragraphs 54, 91). 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 modified Sugaya to incorporate the teachings of Yamauchi in which the firing conditions are tuned in order to optimize the distribution of tungsten between the surface of the primary particles (inside the secondary particles) and the surface of the secondary particles so that less tungsten concentrates on the surface of the secondary particles. Doing so would result in improved output characteristics and battery capacity, as recognized by Yamauchi (Paragraph 54).
The Examiner presents that proper motivation to modify/combine the prior art was presented, in order to reduce tungsten elution and increase long-term stability of the electrode material, as recognized by Yamauchi, was explicitly stated in the rejection of record. The Examiner presents that by reducing the content of the tungsten on the surface of the secondary particles by tuning the firing conditions according to Yamauchi, the obtained benefits described above by Yamauchi could be obtained. Thus, there is nothing that would prompt the ordinary artisan to not have a reasonable expectation of success in the combination of Sugaya and Yamauchi, especially given Yamauchi teaches it is desirable to reduce the quantity of tungsten on the secondary particles and uniformly distribute it on the surfaces of the primary particles, as noted above.
In the remarks filed June 26th, 2026, applicant argues that the instant application sets the proportion of W present on the surface of the secondary particles within the claimed range in order to reduce side reactions and enhance safety and cycle characteristics, which differs from Yamauchi in technical concept.
These arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner presents that it is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by the applicant. See MPEP § 2144 IV. Yamauchi teaches claimed structure which modified Sugaya, as discussed above.
In the remarks filed June 26th, 2026, applicant argues that the instant application demonstrates through Examples and Comparative Examples that the proportion of W present on the surface of the secondary particles in the claimed range is technically significant and unexpected.
These arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner notes that it is the burden of Applicant to provide evidence that establishes that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance. See MPEP 716.02(b)(I).
Applicants have the burden of explaining proffered data. See MPEP 716.02(b)(II).
It is further noted that in order to establish unexpected results over a claimed range, Applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. See MPEP 716.02(d) II.
Additionally, the claims must be commensurate in scope with the proffered data to provide a nexus between the claims and the data establishing evidence of unexpected results. See MPEP 716.02(d). It is noted by the Examiner that the Examples of the instant disclosure provide specific compositional formulas (where the subscripts α, a, b, c, d, and e are set and the variable M is assigned) which are narrower in scope that the instant claimed compositional formula.
In the remarks filed June 26th, 2026, applicant argues that the step of coating the tungsten in Yamauchi is different from that of the present application.
These arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner presents that as established in the Non-Final Rejection mailed January 26th, 2026, the step of coating the tungsten of Sugaya, the primary reference, was compared to that of the instant application as being similar. While applicant appears to be arguing that because Yamauchi teaches a coating method which is different, the Examiner presents that Yamauchi was relied upon to teach the relationship between the firing temperature of the positive electrode active material and the location of the tungsten particles. The Examiner applied the general teachings of Yamauchi to Sugaya in saying that because Yamauchi establishes the ability to control the proportion of tungsten inside and on the surface of the secondary particles by adjusting the firing temperature, it is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill to discover the optimum or workable range according to MPEP 2144.05.
Therefore, the mere differences in the coating step of Yamauchi does not preclude its application as applicable prior art which motivates the ordinary artisan to optimize the firing temperature of the particles to lower the concentration of tungsten on the surface of the secondary particles to within the instant claimed range.
In the remarks filed June 26th, 2026, applicant argues that inherency was improperly relied upon to support W being present both on the surface of the secondary particles and inside the secondary particles.
These arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner presents the following paragraph from the Non-Final Rejection mailed January 26th, 2026:
As described above, because Sugaya teaches the lithium transition metal oxide of the positive electrode active material particles containing at least tungsten, Sugaya teaches tungsten is present on the surface of the primary particle and on the surface of the secondary particle. As seen above in the compositional formula of Sugaya, tungsten and oxygen are present in the lithium transition metal oxide which makes up the primary and secondary particles of Sugaya. Therefore, at least some portion of the tungsten present within the secondary particles (on the surface of the primary particles) and on the surface of the secondary particles is present is in the form of tungsten oxide, or it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan to provide W in these locations in the form of tungsten oxide.
Further the Examiner presents that the argument of inherency of Sugaya to teach the aforementioned limitation was provided in addition (as an alternative) to the Examiner’s assertion that Sugaya teaches W present on the surface and inside the secondary particles in the form of tungsten oxide. The Examiner provides that as outline on Page 7 of the Non-Final Rejection mailed January 26th, 2026, support for the argument of inherency was set forth:
Support for said presumption is found in that Sugaya teaches tungsten is added to the positive electrode active material by mixing WO3 into the transition metal oxide composition after washing (Paragraph 0055). The instant disclosure provides that W raw material in the form of WO3, is added to the metal composite oxide composition which spreads over the surface and inside the secondary particles (Page 11, Lines 20-27). Thus, similar to the instant disclosure, Sugaya teaches tungsten in the form of WO3 added to the lithium transition metal oxide composite particles. Therefore, the lithium metal composite oxide particles of Sugaya are expected to have the same properties of the claimed invention, namely W present in the form of tungsten oxide present on the surface of the secondary particles and inside the secondary particles.
Therefore, there is no evidence of record that would preclude the interpretation that W being present in the aforementioned locations is inherent to Sugaya.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVIA A JONES whose telephone number is (571)272-1718. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM.
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.
/O.A.J./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/JENNIFER A BOYD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights