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
This is a final Office action in response to Applicant’s remarks and amendments filed on 04/08/2026. Claims 1, 6, 8 and 10 are amended. Claims 1 – 7 remain withdrawn. Claim 8 – 13 are pending in the current Office action.
Applicant’s amendments change the scope of the claimed invention in a manner that was not previously considered, specifically applicant’s amendments narrow the scope of the claimed invention by requiring composite oxide to “consist of Li, O, Me, and a residual Na” and the residual Na concentration to be “more than 0.30 weight% and less than 0.100 weight%”. As such, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection set forth in the previous Office action is withdrawn, and a new grounds of rejection necessitated by applicant’s amendment is presented below. Specifically, applicant amendment changed the scope of the claimed
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 8 and 10 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references used in the current rejection. Specifically, in the new grounds of rejection below, instead of Endo (JP2015118892A) and Takayuki (JP2017152359A), the examiner now relies on the teachings of Endo (US PG Pub. 2013/0344387 A1) to render obvious the claimed residual Na concentration.
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) 8 – 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Motobayashi (WO2021111551A1, cited in previous O.A. mailed 01/12/2026) in view of Kuroda (US PG Pub. 2021/0083286 A1, cited in previous O.A. mailed 01/12/2026), Cotton (US PG Pub. 2010/0273054 A1, cited in previous O.A. mailed 01/12/2026), Endo (US PG Pub. 2013/0344387 A1) and Shizuka (US PG Pub. 2007/0202405 A1, cited in previous O.A. mailed 01/12/2026).
Regarding Claim 8 and 10 – 13, Motobayashi discloses a cathode active material comprising a composite oxide ([0033][0036]), wherein the composite oxide consists of Li, O, and Me, wherein Me is at least one of Ni, Co, Mn, which is within the claimed selection of at least one of Ni, Co, Mn, Al, and Fe, that is Motobayashi particularly teaches using lithium cobalt oxide or lithium manganese oxide for the oxide-based positive electrode active material ([0036]).
Motobayashi does not explicitly disclose the composite oxide further consisting of residual Na and the residual Na concentration in the composite oxide being more than 0.030 weight% and less than 0.100 weight%.
Endo teaches a lithium transition metal composite oxide material for the positive electrode of a lithium secondary battery that contain residual Na in an amount of 900 ppm or more {i.e. ≈ 0.090 weight% or more} and 16000 ppm or less {i.e. ≈ 1.60 weight% or less}, or residual K in an amount of 1200 ppm or more and 18000 ppm or less ([0019];[0033 – 0037]). Endo further teaches that the inclusion of residual Na improves the discharge capacity of the material ([0033]). An amount less than 900 ppm is taught by Endo to be insufficient for achieving the improved discharge capacity effect, and increasing the amount of residual lithium is taught to increase the discharge capacity while also affecting the cathode active material paste stability and processability of the cathode ([0033]). Furthermore, amounts larger than 16000 ppm are taught by Endo to decrease discharge capacity and deteriorate paste stability and electrode processability ([0033]).
Since Motobayashi teaches a lithium metal composite oxide material for a positive electrode of a battery, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the active material of Motobayashi to also include residual Na in the amount taught by Endo, and thus obtain a composite oxide material within the claimed scope and with a residual Na concentration that encompasses the claimed range of more than 0.300 weight% and less than 0.100 weight%, with a reasonable expectation of success in obtaining an improvement in discharge capacity.
Absent of a showing of criticality, selection of an amount of Na within the overlapping portion of the claimed range and the Endo’s taught range, would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize discharge capacity in view of the processability and/or stability of the positive electrode active material, with a reasonable expectation of success and without undue experimentation [See MPEP 2144.05(II)].
Motobayashi further discloses in the composite oxide, from a granule side, in an accumulated particle distribution as a volume reference, when D10 designates a particle size of 10% accumulation, D50 designates a particle size of 50% accumulation, and D90 designates a particle size of 90% accumulation, a D50 of, most preferably 0.1 µm to 1.0 µm ([0034];[0037 – 0038];[0044]), which overlaps the claimed range of 0.3 µm or more and less than 1.0 µm.
Motobayashi teaches that powders having a D50 larger than 1.0 µm do not adhere well together and thus may not form a sufficient active material layer thickness ([0037]). Motobayashi further teaches a preference for selecting a D50 in the range of 0.8 µm or less and indicates that as the D50 decreases the ease of handling/workability of the material decreases ([0037 – 0038]).
Therefore, selection of a D50 for the active material of modified Motobayashi within the overlapping portion of the claimed range and the range taught by Motobayashi, would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the workability/ease of handling of the particles, with a reasonable expectation of success and without undue experimentation [See MPEP 2144.05(II)].
Motobayashi further teaches having the D10 of the active material be in the range of 0.01 µm to 0.5 µm and the D90/D10 be in the range of 10 or less; therefore, Motobayashi implicitly teaches a D90 range of 5 µm or less ([0039]). One with ordinary skill in the art would recognize, based on the taught D50, D10, and D90 ranges, that modified Motobayashi’s cathode active material provides a (D90 – D10)/D50 that overlaps/at least encompasses the claimed range of 0.9 or more and 1.7 or less.
Kuroda teaches a lithium metal composite oxide powder for a positive electrode that having a 90% cumulative volumetric particle diameter D90, 10% cumulative volumetric particle diameter D10, and 50% cumulative volumetric particle size D50, that provides a ratio, (D90 – D10)/D50 of less than 2.0 ([0010]). Kuroda further teaches, most preferably having the ratio be 0.5 of more and 1.8 or less to achieve higher filling of the positive electrode active material and increased battery energy density ([0062 – 0066]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to control the particle size distribution of modified Motobayashi’s active material such that the (D90 – D10)/D50 provides a value within the range taught by Kuroda, and thus obtain a range that overlaps the claimed range, with a reasonable expectation of success is achieving increased energy density through higher active material filling.
Cotton teaches, with respect to electrode active material, that narrow particle distributions result in dense packing of active material particles, and, thus provide an electrode with lower material density and higher porosity ([0022]). Cotton further teaches that large particles, on a scale of the thickness of the electrode, generate surface non-uniformity, while small particles have more surface area than larger ones, and, as a result increase the potential for inter-particle interactions that cause effects such as agglomeration or suspension instability ([0023]).
Therefore, selection of a (D90 - D10)/D50 within the overlapping portion of the claimed range and the range of modified Motobayashi would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the surface uniformity and loading of the Motobayashi’s cathode layer in addition to the overall energy density of Motobayashi’s battery, with a reasonable expectation of success and without undue experimentation [See MPEP 2144.05(II)].
Modified Motobayashi does not disclose a bulk density of the composite oxide being 1.8 g/cm3 or more and 2.3 g/cm3 (Claim 8), 1.8 g/cm3 or more and 3.0 g/cm3 (Claim 10), 1.8 g/cm3 or more and 2.5 g/cm3 or less (Claim 11), 2.1 g/cm3 or more and 3.0 g/cm3 or less (Claim 12), or further 2.1 g/cm3 or more and 2.5 g/cm3 or less (Claim 13).
Shizuka teaches a lithium nickel-manganese-cobalt composite oxide positive electrode active material having bulk density of generally 1.5 g/cc – 3 g/cc and most preferably 2.1 g/cc – 2.6 g/cc ([0015];[0050]). Bulk densities lower than the lower limit are taught by Shizuka to adversely affect powder packing and electrode preparation, and further result in an active material having too low a capacity density per unit volume. Bulk densities higher than the upper limit are taught by Shizuka to result smaller specific surface areas of the active material and further reduced battery performance ([0050]). High bulk densities are taught to be preferable in Shizuka, because such densities are preferred for powder packing and electrode density improvements ([0050]).
Since Motobayashi teaches employing their composite oxide material in a cathode active material layer ([0033 – 0034]), it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to control the bulk density of the active material, to be within the range taught by Shizuka, and thus obtain a bulk density that overlaps all of the claimed ranges, with a reasonable expectation of success in achieving an active material suitable for a battery electrode and capable of providing an improved electrode density.
Selection within the overlapping portion of the claimed bulk density ranges and the taught bulk density range would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of optimizing the positive electrode density while preventing the active material specific surface area from becoming too small and reducing battery performance, with a reasonable expectation of success and without undue experimentation [MPEP 2144.05(II)].
Regarding Claim 9, modified Motobayashi discloses all limitation as set forth above. Motobayashi further discloses a lithium ion secondary battery ([0050];[0071]) comprising a cathode layer (Fig. 1, 2 [0027];[0050];[0051]), an anode layer ([0051];[0071]), and an electrolyte layer arranged between the cathode layer and the anode layer (Fig. 1, 1; [0027 – 0028];[0050 – 0051]).
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 ARYANA Y ORTIZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5986. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 AM - 5:00 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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1292. 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.
/A.Y.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/Haroon S. Sheikh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
Prosecution Insights