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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 15th, 2025 has been entered.
Claim Status
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments submitted on December 15th, 2025 have been entered into the file. Currently claim 3 is new, resulting in claims 1-3 pending for examination.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed December 15th, 2025 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 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 (not required)
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).
As instant claim 1 defines M but does not require that subscript d is non-zero, Sugaya meets the claimed limitations.
However, alternatively, 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).
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 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.
Response to Arguments
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789