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
Claims 1, 3-6, 13-20 are pending in the application, with claims 2, 7-12 cancelled and claims 15-18 withdrawn due to a previous restriction requirement.
The amendment filed 01/13/2026 has been entered but does not place the application in condition for allowance. The cancellation of claims 8-12 overcomes the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection to claims 8-12 in the 10/14/2025 Office Action and the objection to original claim 9, and the new abstract provided overcomes the objection to the original length of the Abstract. The amendment to claim 13 overcomes the original 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejection to the original claim.
New rejections follow.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because the amendments made to the claim do not include markings to indicate the changes that have been made relative to the immediate prior version of the claims.
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, 5-6, 13-14, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seki (CN 1799162 A) in view of Lee (US 20140234718 A1) and Park et al (US 20200161650 A1, with a U.S. filing date prior to the instant application).
Regarding claim 1, Seki teaches a positive active material comprising a plurality of first particles (machine translation: [0120], [0131]), wherein the plurality of first particles has a crystal structure of an α-NaFeO2 type and includes a lithium transition metal oxide including Ni ([0123]), wherein a part of the Ni transition metal sites in a crystal lattice of the crystal structure can be substituted with a doping element M such as Mg, Ti, Zr, and V and that the position of Ni may be substituted with two or more other elements ([0124]), and a part of the oxygen sites in the crystal lattice is substituted with sulfur S ([0134]). Seki further teaches a formula LiaNixCoyAlzO2 for the lithium transition metal oxide ([0127]-[0128]) wherein a is a number at least 0 and at most 1.1, x is a number at least 0.5 and at most 0.9, y is a number at least 0 and at most 0.5, and z is a number at least 0 and at most 0.1. The taught lithium transition metal oxide includes Ni, Co, and Al, thereby reading upon the limitation of including Ni and at least one of Co, Mn, and Al.
Seki does not teach W as a doping element M within the lithium transition metal oxide or the amount of W included in the lithium transition metal oxide. Seki also does not disclose the sulfur content in the lithium transition metal oxide.
In the same field of endeavor, Lee teaches a typical amount within this type of lithium transition metal oxide positive active material ([0013]), disclosing sulfur as an option for divalent anion A to substitute for oxygen ions ([0014], [0016], [0020]) within their lithium transition metal oxide written as LiaNixMnyCozMwO2-tAt. Within the taught compositions ([0015]), t can be 0.002, and the sum of mole concentration of elements other than the anions can take the value of 2, which would correspond to a sulfur concentration in the material of about 500 ppm. Lee further teaches that a suitable amount of the anion substitutions increases the bonding strength between the anions and the transition metal which may result in an increased lifespan of the secondary battery ([0021]). Therefore, the prior art shows that the shared technical feature does not make a contribution over the prior art. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have looked to Lee for suitable amounts of the anion substitutions for oxygen in the lithium transition metal oxide positive active material of modified Seki to increase the bonding strength between the anions and the transition metal that may result in an increased lifespan of the secondary battery. They would have also been motivated to use routine experimentation within the taught range of t, corresponding to the amount of sulfur ([0015]), to arrive at the claimed range of sulfur substituent in order to optimize the lifespan of the secondary battery.
In the same field of endeavor, Park teaches a positive electrode lithium composite metal oxide active material for a lithium secondary battery that that can be doped with an element A from a group including W ([0024], [0027]-[0030]). Park also teaches in paragraph [0042] that the element A serves to improve thermal/structural stability of the active material by substituting Ni, Co, or Mo, and that among the possible options for element A, elements W or Mo are known to have excellent reactivity with lithium and stability improvement effect on the active material. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have been motivated to incorporate W as a suitable dopant M to the positive active material of modified Seki given that Park teaches element W is known to have excellent reactivity with lithium and stability improvement effect on the active material when substituting for transition metals in the active material.
As for the claimed range of subscript α for element W, analogous art Park teaches w as a subscript for A in paragraph [0043], disclosing “in a case where the element A is further included, the element A may be included in the lithium composite metal oxide in an amount corresponding to w, specifically, 0<x≤0.2. When w exceeds 0.2, charge and discharge capacity of the battery may be deteriorated due to decrease of the metal element contributing to a reduction reaction. In addition, in consideration of significant improvement effect according to control in a substitution amount of element A to be included in the lithium composite metal oxide, w may be 0<x≤0.05 or 0.01≤x≤0.05.” A skilled artisan would have recognized that the amount of dopant W is a result-effective variable. They accordingly would have been motivated to utilize routine experimentation to adjust the amount of element W in the positive active material of modified Seki within the range taught by Park to arrive at the claimed range of subscript α in order to optimize the capacity of the battery, given that Seki also teaches the importance of optimizing the capacity of the battery (Seki: [0125] line 5).
Additionally, if w has the range 0<x≤0.05 according to Park’s taught range, and it assumes the value of 0.005, and the total number of moles in the modified Seki’s lithium transition metal oxide LiaNixCoyAlzO2 is 4.0 (a=1.1, x=0.8, y = 0.05, z=0.05, and the subscript on oxygen = 2), then W is present at 0.005/4, or about 1250 ppm, which is within the claimed range. If W is the only doping element M, then the amount of doping element M is also in the claimed range. The limitation regarding the mol% of nickel does not limit how the mol % is being defined or calculated, therefore it can correspond to the mol % of Ni out of the total moles of transition metals in the lithium transition metal oxide, which is about 0.8/0.9 or, about 89 mol%, which satisfies the limitation of wherein 80 mol% or more of nickel is included in the lithium transition metal oxide. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); see MPEP 2144.05, I.
Regarding claim 5, the combination above teaches the positive active material of claim 1, and as pointed out previously in addressing the limitations of claim 1, modified Seki teaches wherein a part of the Ni transition metal sites in a crystal lattice of the crystal structure can be substituted with W as the doping element M ([0124]), which overlaps with the claimed species.
Regarding claim 6, the combination above teaches the positive active material of claim 1, and as pointed out previously in addressing the limitations of claim 1, modified Seki teaches the concentration of the doping element M can be about 1250 ppm, which overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); see MPEP 2144.05, I.
Regarding claim 13, the combination above teaches the positive active material of claim 1. Seki teaches a formula LiaNixCoyAlzO2 for the lithium transition metal oxide ([0127]-[0128]) wherein a is a number at least 0 and at most 1.1. The total moles of transition metals is x+y+z, and Seki teaches (machine translation: [0129], original document: p3 line 25) that 0.9 ≤x+y+z≤ 1.1. Therefore, the molar ratio of Li to the moles of transition metals ranges from 0 to (1.1/0.9), or 0 to 1.2, which overlaps with the claimed range of less than 1.
Regarding claim 14, the combination above teaches the positive active material of claim 1, and Seki further teaches an average particle diameter of the lithium transition metal oxide is at least 0.5 µm and at most 20 µm ([0136]), which overlaps with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 19, the combination above teaches the positive active material of claim 1, and Seki further teaches a positive electrode can be made from a positive active material ([0116]).
Regarding claim 20, the combination above teaches the positive active material of claim 1, and Seki further teaches a lithium secondary battery can be made from a combination of a positive active material, a negative electrode, and an electrolyte ([0116]).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seki et al (CN 1799162 A) in view of Lee (US 20140234718 A1) and Park et al (US 20200161650 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Endo et al (US 20130146808 A1).
Regarding claim 3, the combination above teaches the positive active material of claim 1, but does not teach a part of the lithium sites in the crystal lattice of the lithium transition metal oxide is substituted with one or more alkali metal elements.
In the same field of endeavor, Endo teaches a lithium transition metal composite oxide with an α-NaFeO2 crystal structure (Abstract) in which Na substitutes Li sites in the active material ([0046]). Endo further teaches that the invention has a high discharge capacity at a low temperature ([0044]), as when compared to active material where Na is not contained ([0055]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the positive active material of modified Seki to substitute sodium for some lithium sites of the lithium transition metal oxide to take advantage of high discharge capacity at a low temperature, as taught by Endo. Given that the lithium sites are contained within the crystal lattice of the lithium transition metal oxide, the combination of prior art reads on the claimed limitation of wherein a part of lithium sites in the crystal lattice of the lithium transition metal oxide is substituted with one or more alkali metal elements.
Regarding claim 4, the combination above teaches the positive active material of claim 3, and Endo further teaches that the composition of the lithium transition metal composite oxide satisfies Li1+x-yNayCoaNibMncO2+d (Abstract) and x+a+b+c=1 and 0<y≤0.1, wherein the total number of moles is 1+x+a+b+c+2+d= 1+1+2+d. For -0.2 ≤d≤ 0.2 (Abstract), the total number of moles is thus is between 3.8 and 4.2. If the number of moles of Na (y) is 0.001, then it is included in the lithium transition metal oxide in the range 0.001/4.2, or 240 ppm, and 0.001/3.8, or about 260 ppm which overlaps with the claimed range of 100 ppm to 250 ppm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); see MPEP 2144.05.
Additionally, Endo teaches that a very small amount of Na provides a significant effect of improving the low-temperature discharge capacity yet an excessive inclusion is not advantageous since Na does not undergo insertion/extraction such as Li ([0055]); therefore, Na is a result-effective variable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used routine experimentation to adjust the Na amount in the modified positive active material of Seki within the range taught by Endo to have arrived at the claimed amount in order to optimize the low-temperature discharge capacity of the battery.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues against the obviousness rejection of the limitations in amended claim 1, citing unexpected results of high capacity and long cycle life in the instant specification.
However, the unexpected results are not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention; see MPEP 716.02(d). For example, the cited Preparation Example 12 fails to satisfy both the claimed content of the total amount of doping element M and also the amount of W, therefore one cannot know which feature is responsible for the about 2% lower corresponding initial discharge capacity and initial efficiency performance results of Comparative Example 7 shown in Table 5. Similarly, Table 3 which compares Preparation Example 1 (wherein content of S is in the claimed range) to Preparation Examples 8-9 (wherein content of S is out of the claimed range) differ not only in amount of sulfur precursor added but also in the amount of other dopant precursors added, as seen in Table 1, making it difficult to ascertain which variable is responsible for the performance differences between Preparation Example 1 and Preparation Examples 8-9 depicted in Table 3.
Lastly, Tables 1-2 show recipes for the lithium metal oxide positive active material which utilize a specific transition metal oxide precursor (Ni0.88Co0.09Al0.03(OH)2 or Ni0.88Co0.10Mn0.10(OH)2), but claim 1 recites broad range of compositions beyond that shown in the instant specification. Therefore, one cannot ascribe to the results to the full range of claimed compositions.
The Examiner also respectfully points out in response to Applicant’s assertion that Park neither specifically recognizes or suggests effects of the doping elements regarding the stabilization of the cathode materials and effects to its capacity, that the reference Park et al contemplates the effect of W on the charge and discharge capacity of the battery [0043]. Park further discloses that inclusion of their doping element A, of which W is a possible species thereof [0029], serves to improve thermal/structural stability of the active material [0042]. Therefore, Park also contemplates the effect of W on the stability of the positive active material.
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 GIGI LIN whose telephone number is (571)272-2017. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 - 6.
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, Jeffrey T Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
/G.L.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1726
/JEFFREY T BARTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1726 29 April 2026
Prosecution Insights