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
Examiner notes the following amendments made to the claims:
Claims 2-4, 6 amended
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/20/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-4 and 6 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, examiner acknowledges the cited difference between the instant method and the method of Sugie, regarding the mixture of A. a composite material containing no Li and B. an aqueous solution with Li and M2 together, following by calcining. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made further in view of Chang (US 20100227221 A1), which does teach the above method—specifically, Chang teaches a method of wet mixing a composite oxide containing no Li and an Li compound, and teaches that an additive that can include claimed M2 can be added in within this method at a variety of points—either as the doping agent additive or the alkalifying agent. Additionally, claim 1 is now rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for not clearly defining the scope of the invention/what is required by the claim. See 112 section below for further reasoning.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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. Specifically, the wording of the amended portion of claim 1, which states “the positive electrode active material includes M2 inside secondary particles of the lithium-transition metal composite oxide, wherein M2 represents at least one or more elements selected from the group consisting of Ca, Sr, Sc, Er, Y, Zr, and W; and a composite compound containing no Li and an aqueous solution in which a Li source and a M2 source are dissolved are mixed and calcinated to thereby allow the M2 to be unevenly distributed inside the secondary particles of the lithium-transition metal composite oxide.” Examiner finds that this statement both goes between listing physical pieces of an invention to a method step in a way that is unclear, and additionally the phrasing “and a composite compound containing no Li and an aqueous solution in which a Li source and a M2 source are dissolved are mixed and calcinated to thereby allow the M2 to be unevenly distributed inside the secondary particles of the lithium-transition metal composite oxide.” Is unclear in specifying which parts of the mixture are combined at which point. Specifically, the wording “M2 source are dissolved are mixed” is unclear. For examination purposes, claim 1 will be examined as if the requirement is a wet mixing following by a calcining of the following two components A and B: A. a composite material containing no Li and B. an aqueous solution with Li and M2 together. This is understood to be the meaning of the claim based on the arguments, but the claim will need to be further amended to clarify the components of the mixture and the fact that is mixed in a solution in order to properly define the subject matter which is regarded as the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek (US 20200083524 A1) in view of Chang (US 20100227221 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Baek teaches all of the following elements:
A method of producing a positive electrode active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery, the positive electrode active material including :a lithium-transition metal composite oxide capable of occluding and releasing Li, wherein the lithium-transition metal composite oxide is represented by the general formula LixM1yOzFw, wherein 0.5 ≤ x ≤ 3.1, 1 ≤ y ≤ 2, 2≤ z+w ≤ 4, and M1 represents at least one or more elements selected from the group consisting of Ni, Co, Mn, Ti, Fe, Al, Ge, Si, and Nb, and the positive electrode active material includes M2 inside secondary particles of the lithium- transition metal composite oxide, wherein M2 represents at least one or more elements selected from the group consisting of Ca, Sr, Sc, Er, Y, Zr, and W. (“Hereinafter, a method of preparing each of the first positive electrode active material and the second positive electrode active material will be described.” Baek [0089] and “the first positive electrode active material includes a lithium manganese oxide represented by Formula 1 … Li1+aMn2-bM1bO4-cAc [Formula 1] In Formula 1, M1 is at least one element selected from the group consisting of Al, lithium (Li), Mg, Zn, B, W, Ni, Co, Fe, Cr, V, ruthenium (Ru), Cu, cadmium (Cd), silver (Ag), yttrium (Y), scandium (Sc), gallium (Ga), indium (In), arsenic (As), Sb, platinum (Pt), gold (Au), and Si, A is at least one element selected from the group consisting of F, chlorine (Cl), bromine (Br), iodine (I), astatine (At), and S, 0≤a≤0.2, 0<b≤0.5, and 0≤c≤0.1;” Baek [0009-0010] In this case, if a were 0, b were 0.5, and c were 0.1, and M1 was chosen to be nickel, a composition could be made with the formula Li1Mn1.5Ni0.5O3.9F0.1, which would meet the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, since M1 can be more than one element, Tungsten [W] could also be present, which would meet the limitation of M2 being present in the mixture. ,)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art ranges for the molar ratio and element selection of M1 (Ni and Mn in this case) and A (F in this case), shown in the table below, overlap or encompass the claimed ranges for the same parameters. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 1
Baek Formula 1
LixM1yOzFw, M2
Subscript range
Li1+aMn2-bM1bO4-cAc
Subscript range
Li
0.5≤x<3.1
Li
1≤1+a≤1.2
M1 (Ni, Co, Mn, Ti, Fe, Al, Ge, Si, Nb)
1≤y≤2
Mn, M1 (Al, Li, Mg, Zn, B, W, Ni, Co, Fe, Cr, V, Ru, Cu, Cd, Ag, Y, Sc , Ga, In, As, Sb, Pt, Au, Si)
2- b + b = 2;
0<b≤0.5
O
2≤z+w≤4
O
4-c; 0≤c≤0.1
F
2≤z+w≤4
A (F, Cl, Br, I, At, S)
0≤c≤0.1
M2 (Ca, Sr, Sc, Er, Y, Zr, W)
unspecified
M1 (Al, Li, Mg, Zn, B, W, Ni, Co, Fe, Cr, V, Ru, Cu, Cd, Ag, Y, Sc , Ga, In, As, Sb, Pt, Au, Si)
0<b≤0.5
Baek is silent on the following elements of claim 1:
[a method of producing a positive electrode active material wherein…] a composite compound containing no Li
and an aqueous solution in which a Li source and a M2 source are dissolved are mixed
and calcinated to thereby allow the M2 to be unevenly distributed inside the secondary particles of the lithium-transition metal composite oxide.
However, Chang teaches all of the elements of claim 1 that are not found in Baek. Specifically, Chang teaches a method of producing a positive electrode active material which meets all of the limitations of claim 1:
And a composite compound containing no Li and an aqueous solution in which a Li source and a M2 source are dissolved are mixed and calcinated to thereby allow the M2 to be unevenly distributed inside the secondary particles of the lithium-transition metal composite oxide. (“Disclosed is a method for preparing a lithium-metal composite oxide, the method comprising the steps of: (a) mixing an aqueous solution of one or more transition metal-containing precursor compounds with an alkalifying agent and a lithium precursor compound to precipitate hydroxides of the transition metals; (b) mixing the mixture of step (a) with water under supercritical or subcritical conditions to synthesize a lithium-metal composite oxide, and drying the lithium-metal composite oxide; and (c) subjecting the dried lithium-metal composite oxide either to calcination or to granulation and then calcination.” Chang [abstract]. The method of Chang involves a wet mixing of a composite compound containing no Li and an aqueous lithium precursor compound. Additionally, Chang teaches the inclusion of an additive during any of the three steps listed above “Before, after or during any step of the steps (a) to (c), it is possible to add at least one additive selected from among … doping agent” Chang [0058], and that the additive can include the M2 of the instant invention “For example, the transition metal site in the active materials represented by the formulas 1 to 4 can be doped with trace amounts of other elements selected from among alkaline earth metals and Group 3B elements.” Chang [0080]. Additionally to teaching the inclusion of an additive, Chang even more explicitly teaches the claimed method in its first step, involving the mixing of a precursor, alkalifying agent, and lithium precursor: Chang explicitly teaches the use of Ca(OH)2 as an additive “The alkalifying agent is not specifically limited as long as it makes the reaction solution alkaline. Non-limiting examples of the alkalifying agent … alkaline earth metal hydroxides (Ca(OH).sub.2” Chang [0043] and “1) Step of mixing an aqueous solution of one or more transition metal-containing precursor compounds with an alkalifying agent and a lithium precursor compound” Chang [0040]. In change step 1, the transition metal-containing precursor acts as the composite compound containing no Li [the “A” part of the mixture as explained above], and the alkalifying agent and lithium precursor function as the “B.”)
Chang is considered to be analogous to Baek because they are both within the same field of methods for producing positive electrode active materials. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Baek to use the method of Chang for producing a positive electrode active material that meets the limitations of claim 1 because it would be using a known method in the art to achieve predictable results. Additionally, Chang shows that batteries made using the active material described show improved characteristics (“In particular, it could be seen that the lithium-metal composite oxide shows crystal stability and excellent physical properties as a result of an improvement in the ordering of metals, and thus can provide a battery having high capacity characteristics, long cycle life characteristics and improved rate characteristics.” Chang [0026]).
By using the method of Chang to produce the positive electrode active material of Baek, including the selection of M2 as either the doping agent of the alkalifying agent, the additional limitations of claims 2-4 and 6 would be met as well without requiring any further modification or motivation.
Regarding claim 2, modified Baek teaches all of the following elements:
The method of producing the positive electrode active material for the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the lithium-transition metal composite oxide is represented by the general formula Li1+α,Ni0.5-βMn1.5- γM2β+γOaFb, wherein 0 ≤ α ≤ 0.2, 0 ≤ β < 0.2, 0 ≤ y < 0.5, 0 ≤ b ≤ 0.2 ,3.8 ≤ a+b ≤ 4.2, and M2 represents at least one or more elements selected from the group consisting of Ti, Fe, Al, Ge, Si, and Nb. (“the first positive electrode active material includes a lithium manganese oxide represented by Formula 1 … Li1+aMn2-bM1bO4-cAc [Formula 1] In Formula 1, M1 is at least one element selected from the group consisting of Al, lithium (Li), Mg, Zn, B, W, Ni, Co, Fe, Cr, V, ruthenium (Ru), Cu, cadmium (Cd), silver (Ag), yttrium (Y), scandium (Sc), gallium (Ga), indium (In), arsenic (As), Sb, platinum (Pt), gold (Au), and Si, A is at least one element selected from the group consisting of F, chlorine (Cl), bromine (Br), iodine (I), astatine (At), and S, 0≤a≤0.2, 0<b≤0.5, and 0≤c≤0.1;” Baek [0009-0010] In this case, if a were 0, b were 0.5, and c were 0.1, a composition could be made with the formula Li1Mn1.5Ni0.5O3.9F0.1, which would meet the limitations of claim 1, given that if β and y are both equal to 0, the molar ratio of M2 would also be 0)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art ranges for the molar ratio and element selection of M1 (Ni in this case), A (F in this case), and M2 (not present in this case), shown in the table below, overlap or encompass the claimed ranges for the same parameters. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 2
Baek Formula 1
Li1+α,Ni0.5-βMn1.5-γM2β+γOaFb
Subscript range
Li1+aMn2-bM1bO4-cAc
Subscript range
Li
1≤ Li1.2
Li
1≤1+a≤1.2
Ni
0 ≤ β < 0.2
M1 (Al, Li, Mg, Zn, B, W, Ni, Co, Fe, Cr, V, Ru, Cu, Cd, Ag, Y, Sc , Ga, In, As, Sb, Pt, Au, Si)
2- b + b = 2;
0<b≤0.5
Mn
0 ≤ y < 0.5
Mn
O
3.8≤a+b≤4.2
O
4-c; 0≤c≤0.1
F
3.8≤a+b≤4.2
A (F, Cl, Br, I, At, S)
0≤c≤0.1
M2 (Ti, Fe, Al, Ge, Si, and Nb)
0 ≤ β < 0.2 , 0 ≤ y < 0.5,M2β+yIn the case of being unpatentable over the material of Baek, both β and y would be 0, and therefore no M2 would be present.
N/A
N/A
Regarding claim 3, modified Baek teaches all of the following elements:
The method of producing the positive electrode active material for the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the M2 includes at least one or more elements selected from the group consisting of Ca and Sr. (“the second positive electrode active material is represented by Formula 2… Li1+x[NiyCozMnwM2v]O2-pBp [Formula 2] In Formula 2, M2 is at least one element selected from the group consisting of W, Cu, Fe, V, Cr, Ti, Zr, Zn, Al, In, tantalum (Ta), Y, lanthanum (La), Sr, Ga, Sc, gadolinium (Gd), samarium (Sm), Ca, cerium (Ce), Nb, Mg, B, and Mo, B is at least one element selected from the group consisting of F, Cl, Br, I, At, and S, 0≤x≤0.3, 0.50≤y<1, 0<z<0.35, 0<w<0.35, 0≤v≤0.1, and 0≤p≤0.1.” Baek [0009-0011] In this case, since claim 1 states that M1 can be at least one of more of the listed elements, the presence of Ni, Co, and Mn would all be covering that limitation of claim 1, M2 would be strontium or calcium, and a possible composition would be Li1Ni0.5Co0.3Mn0.3Sr0.1O1.9F0.1, which would meet all of the limitations of claim 3. The combined molar ratio of Ni, Co, and Mn, which are all M1 in the claimed formula, would be 1.1, which is within the claimed parameter.)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art ranges for the molar ratio and element selection of M1 (Ni, Mn, and Co in this case), B (F in this case), and M2 (Ca or Sr in this case), shown in the table below, overlap or encompass the claimed ranges for the same parameters. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 3
Baek Formula 2
LixM1yOzFw, M2
Subscript range
Li1+x[NiyCozMnwM2v]O2-pBp
Subscript range
Li
0.5≤x<3.1
Li
1≤1+a≤1.2
M1 (Ni, Co, Mn, Ti, Fe, Al, Ge, Si, Nb)
1≤y≤2
Mn, Co, Ni
0.50≤y<1, 0<z<0.35, 0<w<0.35
O
2≤z+w≤4
O
2-p, 0≤p≤0.1
F
2≤z+w≤4
B (F, Cl, Br, I, At, S)
0≤p≤0.1
M2 (Ca, Sr,)
unspecified
M2 (W, Cu, Fe, V, Cr, Ti, Zr, Zn, Al, In, Ta, Y, La, Sr, Ga, Sc, Gd, Sm, Ca, Ce, Nb, Mg, B, and Mo
0≤v≤0.1
Regarding claim 4, modified Baek teaches all of the following elements:
The method of producing the positive electrode active material for the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein a mole fraction of M2 based on a total number of moles of metal elements excluding Li contained in the lithium-transition metal composite oxide is 0.1% to 10%. (If the lithium-transition metal composite oxide of claim 3, Li1Ni0.5Co0.3Mn0.3Sr0.1O1.9F0.1 were used, the mole fraction of M2 [Sr], 0.1, based on total the number of non-lithium metal elements, 1.2, would be 8.33%, which is within the claimed range.)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range for the molar fraction of M2 based on the total number of moles of metal elements excluding lithium, 0-20% (0% if Sr is 0 or 0.000001, etc., or 20% if Ni is 0.5, Co and Mn are 0 or near zero, and Sr is 0.1), encompassed the claimed range of 0.1-10%. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek (US 20200083524 A1) in view of Chang (US 20100227221 A1) and further in view of Sugie (US 20170149060 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Baek and Chang are silent on the following elements:
The method of producing the positive electrode active material for the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 3, wherein the aqueous solution in which a M2 source is dissolved is an aqueous solution in which at least one or more selected from a group consisting of Ca(N03)2 and Sr(N03)2 is dissolved.
However, Sugie teaches all of the elements of claim 6 that are not found in Baek or Chang. Specifically, Sugie teaches that calcium nitrate, Ca(NO3)2 , can be used as a doping agent for a cathode active material
The method of producing the positive electrode active material for the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 3, wherein the aqueous solution in which a M2 source is dissolved is an aqueous solution in which at least one or more selected from a group consisting of Ca(N03)2 and Sr(N03)2 is dissolved. (“Step D1) is a step in which a doping element “D”-containing compound is added at any step of steps a) through e), or at a point of time before the calcination in step f). Appropriately determining a compounding amount of the doping element “D”-containing compound is allowed so as to make a desirable doping amount (i.e., “De”). As for the doping element “D”-containing compound, the following are givable: doping element “D”-containing oxides, doping element “D”-containing hydroxides, doping element “D”-containing sulfates, doping element “D”-containing nitrates,” Sugie [0179] and “ “D” is at least one element selected from the group consisting of Fe … Ca” Sugie [0330]. In this case, if element “D” is selected as Calcium, the “D”-containing compound could be calcium nitrate, which would meet the limitations of claim 6.)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range for the source element of D, which is any of Fe, Cr, Cu, Zn, Ca, Mg, Zr, S, Si, Na, K, Al, Ti, P, Ga, Ge, V, Mo, Nb, W, La, Hf and Rf delivered as an oxide, sulfide, hydroxide, sulfate, or nitrate of those elements, overlaps the claimed range of M2 being delivered from a source of Ca(NO3)2 or Sr(NO3)2. Specifically, both groupings can use calcium nitrate as the source of M2 in the method of producing a positive electrode active material. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05
Sugie is considered to be analogous to Baek and Chang because it is within the same field of methods for producing positive electrode active materials. It, like Chang, also teaches the inclusion of a doping agent into the active material. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the doping agent of Chang to be that of Sugie instead, as this would only be a simple substitution of one doping agent additive for a positive electrode active material for another, and the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. (see MPEP § 2143, B.). By including a Ca(NO3)2 additive in the method of Chang, all of the limitations of claim 6 would be met.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 BENJAMIN ELI KASS-MULLET whose telephone number is (571)272-0156. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-6pm except for the first Friday of bi-week.
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, NICHOLAS SMITH can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/BENJAMIN ELI KASS-MULLET/Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights