POSITIVE ELECTRODE ACTIVE MATERIAL FOR NONAQUEOUS ELECTROLYTE SECONDARY BATTERIES, METHOD FOR PRODUCING POSITIVE ELECTRODE ACTIVE MATERIAL FOR NONAQUEOUS ELECTROLYTE SECONDARY BATTERIES, AND NONAQUEOUS ELECTROLYTE SECONDARY BATTERY
DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
In response to communication filed on 3/2/2026:
Claims 1 and 6 have been amended; no new matter has been entered.
Previous rejections under 35 USC 103 have been upheld.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant discloses: “The Office alleged that Fukuchi discloses, at paragraph [0030], that the amount of Ca is 0.4 to 2.1 wt%, and that range accounts for "a total amount of Ca and Sr in the surface modification compound is 0.5 mol%," as recited in claim 1. Applicant respectfully disagrees with the Office's characterization of Fukuchi at least because it does not consider the difference in units between Fukuchi and the present claims. Specifically, Fukuchi uses the units "wt%," which differs from the unit "mol%" recited in Claim 1 of the present application. It is not, therefore, possible to directly compare the amounts disclosed in the two inventions. Moreover, Fukuchi states, at paragraph [0035], that "the amount of the calcium compound added is determined in the range of from 0.001 to 0.05 in terms of the molar ratio (Ca/M) of Ca atoms in the calcium compound to the total amount (M) of Ni atoms, Co atoms, and Me atoms in the compound containing the nickel, cobalt, and Me atoms." The amount of Ca disclosed in Fukuchi is therefore 0.001 mol% to 0.05 mol%. Not only is there no overlap between ranges, the high- end range of Ca in Fukuchi appears to be eight times lower than the low-end range of the present claims
The Examiner respectfully traverses. Fukuchi discloses the molar ratio of Ca is 0.001 to 0.05. Molar ratio is not mole percent. Molar ratio is the number of moles of one element divided by the total number of the remaining elements in the matrix. To express this in mole percent, one would simply multiply the molar ratio by 100 and get 0.1-5%. This is within the claimed range. Further, how is the high end rage of Ca in Fukuchi (0.05 mol% according to Applicant) eight times lower than the low-end range of present claims (0.06 mol%). The percent difference between these two values is 16.6%. The Examiner is unclear how this is eight times lower.
However, assuming Fukuchi discloses 0.001-0.005 mol% (which Examiner does not concede), there is no evidence of criticality or unexpected results for the mol% to be anything less than 0.06mol%. Table 4 shows examples 4 and 5 having mol% of Ca at 0.06 with capacity retention at 102.4 and 103.6, respectively. Example 13 discloses mole% of Ca at 0.05 having capacity retention at 103.4 which is just of an appreciable result as examples 4 and 5. In this case, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) MPEP 2144.05 I.
The Applicant discloses: “The Office alleged that Fukuchi discloses, at paragraph [0073], various elements of the present claims. Fukuchi actually refers, at paragraph [0073], to a "firing" process, performed at 850°C. That temperature is used throughout the Examples of Fukuchi with no apparent motivation for or expectation of success in departing from that temperature, let alone using a firing temperature over three times lower. However, the Office chose to rely on Choi for, inter alia, the heat treatment step. Choi states, at paragraph [0095], that lithium transition metal oxide powder is added to an aqueous solution containing Al and is allowed to precipitate, and then the mixture is heat treated at 720°C. Choi also states, at paragraph [0046], that heat treatment is performed at temperatures of above 400°C and 1000°C or lower. None of which directs or suggests a heat treatment step as claimed in which a caky composition is heated treated at a temperature of 250°C or lower.”
The Examiner respectfully traverses. Paragraph 0043 of the original specification discloses:
“The heat treatment step is a step where the caky composition is heat treated at a temperature of 600°C or lower, particularly preferably 250°C or lower. The temperature is not limited as long as it is possible to evaporate water from the caky composition at 600°C or lower, and from the viewpoint of efficiency, the temperature is preferably 100°C or higher and more preferably 150°C or higher.”
The specification does not indicate higher temperatures somehow yielding deleterious results. In fact, the specification goes on to conclude that the temperature is not limited as long as it can evaporate water. This is disclosed in Fukuchi (paragraph 0043) which discloses the mixture is slowly fired at a temperature range of 200-400°C where moisture contained in the raw materials disappears and then is rapidly heated at higher temperature ranges of 700-900°C. Despite the additional higher temperature firing step, Fukuchi still discloses a heat treatment step within the claimed temperature range. Additionally, MPEP 2144.05 II discloses: differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
The specification does not disclose the temperature being less than 250°C as critical. In fact, the specification indicates “and from the viewpoint of efficiency, the temperature is preferably 100°C or higher and more preferably 150°C or higher” without providing a limit.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuchi et al. (US 2011/0020701 A1) and further in view of Saito et al. (US 2006/0204849 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Fukuchi et al. teach a positive electrode active material for non-aqueous electrolyte secondary batteries (Abstract; claims 1 and 8 disclose a positive electrode active material for lithium-ion batteries.), including:
And a surface modification compound present on at least surfaces of the secondary particles, and including at least one of Ca and Sr (Paragraphs 0010; 0073 disclose the positive electrode active material produced contains Ca atoms on the surface of the particles thereof.), wherein
the lithium transition metal composite oxide includes 70 mol% or more of Ni relative to a total number of mole of metal elements excluding Li (Table 5 discloses 82 mol% Ni.);
the lithium transition metal composite oxide is represented by the formula LiaNi1-x-yCoxMyO2 where 0.97≤a≤1.20, 0≤x≤0.2, 0≤y≤0.1, and M is at least one element selected from the group consisting of W, Mg, Mo, Nb, Ti, Si, and Al (Paragraph 0073 discloses the positive electrode active material can be comprised of the formula Li1.01Ni0.82Co0.15Al0.03O2 which reads on the claimed formula.)
and a total amount of Ca and Sr in the surface modification compound is 0.06 mol% or more and 0.5 mol% or less relative to the total number of mole of metal elements excluding Li in the lithium transition metal composite oxide (Paragraph 0035 discloses the content of Ca has a molar ratio range of 0.001-0.05, or 0.1-5%.) and
the surface modification compound includes at least one compound selected from the group consisting of: CaO, Ca(OH)2, CaCO3, SrO, Sr(OH)2, and SrCO3 (Paragraph 0073 discloses calcium hydroxide, Ca(OH)2.).).
However, Fukuchi does not disclose a lithium transition metal composite oxide having secondary particles, each of which is formed of aggregated primary particles.
Saito et al. disclose synthesizing Li1.01Ni0.82Co0.15Al0.03O2 for a positive electrode active material (Abstract; Paragraph 0061; Example 1). Further, the positive electrode active material includes secondary particles, each formed of an aggregate of primary particles (Abstract; paragraph 0065).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the lithium transition metal composite oxide of Fukuchi with Saito in order to improve high output characteristics.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Fukuchi and Saito et al. teach a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery, comprising a positive electrode including the positive electrode active material for non-aqueous electrolyte secondary batteries according to claim 1; a negative electrode; and a non-aqueous electrolyte (Fukuchi: paragraph 0048).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuchi et al. (US 2011/0020701 A1) and further in view of Choi et al. (JP 2019-046795 A).
Regarding claim 6, Fukuchi et al. teach a method for producing a positive electrode active material for non- aqueous electrolyte secondary batteries (Paragraphs 0073; 0083-0084) including:
a lithium transition metal composite oxide synthesis step of mixing and calcinating a transition metal oxide including 70 mol% or more of Ni with a Li compound to obtain a lithium transition metal composite oxide (Paragraph 0073 discloses mixing a nickel, cobalt, and aluminum precursors with a lithium raw material and then sintering.);
the lithium transition metal composite oxide is represented by the formula LiaNi1-x-yCoxMyO2 where 0.97≤a≤1.20, 0≤x≤0.2, 0≤y≤0.1, and M is at least one element selected from the group consisting of W, Mg, Mo, Nb, Ti, Si, and Al (Paragraph 0073 discloses the positive electrode active material can be comprised of the formula Li1.01Ni0.82Co0.15Al0.03O2 which reads on the claimed formula.);
at least one selected from the group consisting of a Ca compound and a Sr compound is added to the caky composition during the washing step or before the heat treatment step following the washing step, the heat treatment step is a step wherein the caky composition is heat treated at a temperature of 250°C or lower (Paragraph 0073 discloses the heat treatment step after adding calcium hydroxide to the precursor components. Paragraph 0046 discloses the heat treatment occurs at 200-400°C to remove moisture.), and
the at least one of the Ca compound and the Sr compound is at least one compound selected from the group consisting of: CaCl2, Ca(OH)2, CaO, CaCO3, CaSO4, Ca(NO3)2, SrCl2, Sr(OH)2, Sr(OH)2 •8H2O, SrO, SrCO3, SrSO4, and Sr(NO3)2 (Paragraph 0073 discloses calcium hydroxide, Ca(OH)2.).)..
However, Fukuchi et al. do not teach a washing step of washing the lithium transition metal composite oxide with water and dehydrating it to obtain a caky composition; and a heat treatment step of subjecting the caky composition to heat treatment to obtain the positive electrode active material for non-aqueous electrolyte secondary batteries.
Choi et al. teach a method for producing a positive electrode active material for non-aqueous electrolyte secondary batteries (Abstract discloses a cathode material for a lithium battery comprising a lithium metal oxide. Further, paragraph 0035 discloses a layered crystal structure having chemical formula 2: LixCo1-yMyO2-αXα wherein 0.9≦x≦1.1, 0≦y≦0.9, 0<z≦0.2, 0≦α≦2, M is one or more metals selected from the group consisting of Ni, Mn, Zr, Al, Mg, Ag, Mo, Ti, V, Cr, Fe, Cu, and B.), including: a lithium transition metal composite oxide synthesis step of mixing and calcinating a transition metal oxide including 70 mol% or more of Ni with a Li compound to obtain a lithium transition metal composite oxide (Paragraph 0090 discloses synthesizing a layered lithium metal oxide by mixing precursor salts in water to yield a metal hydroxide powder. The powder was mixed with LiOH and then the mixture was sintered at 765 °C for 20 h under oxygen flow.), a washing step of washing the lithium transition metal composite oxide with water and dehydrating it to obtain a caky composition (Paragraph 0095 discloses washing the obtained lithium metal oxide in distilled water and dried.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Fukuchi with the washing step of Choi in order to improve thermal stability and remove impurities.
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 DANIEL S GATEWOOD whose telephone number is (571)270-7958. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:30.
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 Tavares-Crockett 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.
Daniel S. Gatewood, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1729
/DANIEL S GATEWOOD, Ph. D/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729 March 19th 2026