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 .
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received on 2/17/2026:
Claims 1-13 are pending in the current application. Claims 1, 5, and 9 have been amended and claims 7-13 remain withdrawn.
The objection to claim 5 has been overcome in light of the amendment.
The cores of the previous prior art-based rejections have been maintained in light of the amendment.
Claim Interpretation
All “wherein” clauses are given patentable weight unless otherwise noted. Please see MPEP 2111.04 regarding optional claim language.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but are not found to be persuasive to overcome the rejection of record.
Arguments directed at Song
Applicant argues that the disclosure of Song teaches nothing regarding a relationship on the amount of zirconium with respect to a total amount of nickel, cobalt, and zirconium at the surface of the material.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Song does teach optimizing the ratio between the zirconium oxide and transition metals in stating “...lithium zirconium oxide may be in a range of about 0.05 mol % to about 5 mol %, or, for example, about 0.1 mol % to about 0.5 mol %, relative to the total molar amount of a transition metal of the lithium composite oxide” and “...zirconium oxide may be in a range of about 0.05 mol % to about 5 mol %, or, for example, about 0.1 mol % to about 0.5 mol %, relative to the total molar amount of a transition metal of the lithium composite oxide” to improve lifespan and storage characteristics of the lithium secondary battery (see paragraphs [0040]-[0041]), which would lead to modifying the amounts of lithium zirconium oxide and zirconium oxide (and consequently zirconium itself) with respect to the transition metals. The transition metal amount of Song correlates to the total transition metal amount taught by Makino (which includes nickel and cobalt).
Further, the arguments regarding the ratio at the surface of the material is not commensurate in scope with the claim language. In Claim 1 of the instant application, nickel and cobalt are not recited as being present at the surface and are only positively recited as being a part of the core of the lithium transition metal oxide. Only the coating layer including zirconium is positively recited as being on the surface. So, the ratio is interpreted as being between the zirconium in the coating material (which is located on the surface of the particles) and the nickel and cobalt contained in the lithium transition metal composite oxide particles (core). This relationship is taught by Song as discussed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makino et al. WO-2018043382-A1 (US-20190198919-A1 cited in PTO-892 and used as translation) (hereinafter “Makino”) in view of Song et al. US-20170133672-A1 (hereinafter “Song”).
Regarding Claim 1, Makino discloses a positive electrode active material comprising a lithium transition metal oxide (LiNi0.85Co0.10Al0.05O2, which a skilled artisan would recognize is a lithium transition metal oxide) and a coating layer for coating at least a part of a surface of the particles (see paragraphs [0076]-[0080], [0086]-0093], and [0332]-[0336]),
wherein, in the lithium transition metal composite oxide, a substance quantity ratio of Li and transition metals is represented by Li: Ni: Co: M = t: 1-x-y: x: y (wherein, M is Al, 0.95≤t≤1.20, 0≤x≤0.22, 0≤y≤0.15 (the disclosed formula of LiNi0.85Co0.10Al0.05O2 meets these limitations, where t=1, x=0.1, and y=0.05)) (see paragraphs [0076]-[0080], [0086]-0093], and [0332]-[0336]), and
the coating layer comprises a lithium zirconium compound (Li2ZrO3) (see paragraphs [0076]-[0080], [0086]-0093], and [0332]-[0336]).
Makino is silent on a ratio Zrs/(Nis+Cos+Zrs) of a sum Nis+Cos+Zrs of substance quantities of Ni, Co, Zr and a substance quantity Zrs of Zr existing on a surface of the positive electrode active material for the lithium ion secondary battery is 0.80 or more and 0.97 or less.
However, in the same field of endeavor of positive electrode active materials (see abstract), Song discloses a lithium composite oxide with a lithium zirconium oxide coating having an amount of lithium zirconium oxide 0.05 mol % to about 5 mol %, relative to the total molar amount of a transition metal of the lithium composite oxide (see paragraphs [0007]-[0008] and [0040]-[0043]).
Song additionally discloses when the amount of lithium zirconium oxide is within the disclosed range, the lifespan and storage characteristics of the lithium secondary battery may be improved (see paragraphs [0041] and [0057]). As such, the amount of zirconium oxide in relation to the transition metals in the transition metal oxide is a result effective variable and the discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.). Optimizing the ratio between the zirconium oxide and transition metals of the transition metal oxide would necessarily lead to optimization of the ratio between a sum Nis+Cos+Zrs of substance quantities of Ni, Co, Zr and a substance quantity Zrs of Zr (as Ni and Co are transition metals).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the positive electrode active material disclosed by Makino wherein a ratio Zrs/(Nis+Cos+Zrs) of a sum Nis+Cos+Zrs of substance quantities of Ni, Co, Zr and a substance quantity Zrs of Zr existing on a surface of the positive electrode active material for the lithium ion secondary battery is 0.80 or more and 0.97 or less, as disclosed by Song, in order to achieve the optimal amount of Zr in relation to transition metals of the transition metal oxide and improve lifespan and storage characteristics of the lithium secondary battery.
Regarding Claim 6, modified Makino discloses the positive electrode active material for the lithium ion secondary battery according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Makino further discloses a lithium ion secondary battery comprising at least a positive electrode using the positive electrode active material for the lithium ion secondary battery according to the aforementioned claim 1, a negative electrode, and a solid electrolyte in Fig. 1 (see paragraphs [0003], [0038], [0050], and [0262]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mikano in view of Song as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Watanabe et al. US-20080131778-A1 (hereinafter “Watanabe”).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Makino discloses the positive electrode active material for the lithium ion secondary battery according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Makino and Song are silent on a Zr content of the coating layer per 1 m2 of a surface area of the lithium transition metal composite oxide without the coating layer is 0.13 mmol or more and 0.30 mmol or less.
However, in the same field of endeavor of positive electrode (cathode) active materials (see abstract), Watanabe discloses a lithium transition metal oxide (composite oxide containing at least lithium and cobalt) with a coating containing Zr (zirconium), where the Zr is included in amount of preferably 1.0x10-4 mol to 1.0x10-3 mol per surface area of 1m2 (which is equivalent to 0.1 mmol to 1 mmol of Zr per surface area of 1m2) (see abstract and paragraphs [0013] and [0605]).
Watanabe additionally discloses if the amount of Zr is too high, a diffusion resistance of lithium ions increases and the capacitance of the cathode active material decreases and if the amount of Zr is too low, the prevention of the sintering between the particles and the improving effect of the charge/discharge cycle characteristics associated therewith deteriorate (see paragraph [0605]). As such, the amount of Zr is a result effective variable and the discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.). So, a skilled artisan would be motivated to optimize the amount of Zr within the suggested range of Watanbe to arrive at a Zr content of the coating layer per 1 m2 of a surface area of the lithium transition metal composite oxide without the coating layer of 0.13 mmol or more and 0.30 mmol or less.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the positive electrode active material disclosed by Makino and Song wherein a Zr content of the coating layer per 1 m2 of a surface area of the lithium transition metal composite oxide without the coating layer is 0.13 mmol or more and 0.30 mmol or less, as disclosed by Watanabe, in order to achieve the optimal amount of Zr to avoid a decrease in the capacitance of the cathode active material and deterioration in the charge/discharge cycle characteristics.
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makino in view of Song as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. Revisiting Primary Particles in Layered Lithium Transition-Metal Oxides and Their Impact on Structural Degradation, 2019, Adv. Sci., Pages 1-9 (hereinafter “Lee”).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Makino discloses the positive electrode active material for the lithium ion secondary battery according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Makino and Song are silent on the lithium transition metal composite oxide is having a crystal structure pertaining to a space group R-3m.
However, in the same field of endeavor of positive electrode (cathode) active materials (see abstract), Lee discloses layered lithium transition metal positive electrode active materials, such as NCM materials (LiNi0.8Co0.1-Mn0.1O2) serving as a representative layered lithium transition-metal oxide, are commonly used in the art and have a layered structure of an R-3m space group (see pages 2 and 8 and Figure 1g).
Lee additionally discloses the microstructure of layered lithium transition metal composite oxide helps the facile insertion/extraction of lithium ions into/from cathode particles (see pages 1 and 8). Further, the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to the positive electrode active material disclosed by Makino and Song wherein the lithium transition metal composite oxide has a crystal structure pertaining to a space group R-3m, as disclosed by Lee, as it is a known positive electrode material in the art to achieve the facile insertion/extraction of lithium ions into/from cathode particles.
Regarding Claim 5, modified Makino discloses the positive electrode active material for the lithium ion secondary battery according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Makino and Song are silent on a volume average particle size of the particles of the lithium transition metal composite oxide being 2 micrometers or more and 20 micrometers or less.
However, Lee discloses layered lithium transition metal positive electrode active materials, including general LiMO2 and NCM materials, commonly contain particles ranging from 0.1 micrometer (µm) to 10 micrometers (see page 1). This range substantially overlaps and therefore renders obvious the claimed range of a volume average particle size of the particles of the lithium transition metal composite oxide of 2 micrometers or more and 20 micrometers or less.
Lee additionally discloses size of the particles is critical to the battery performance because they affect the reaction capability of the cathode (see pages 1-2 and 8). As such, the size the particles is a result effective variable and the discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the positive electrode active material for the lithium ion secondary battery disclosed by Makino and Song wherein a volume average particle size of the particles of the lithium transition metal composite oxide is 2 micrometers or more and 20 micrometers or less, as disclosed by Song, in order to optimize the reaction capability of the cathode and battery performance.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makino in view of Song as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Oda US-20170207453-A1 (hereinafter “Oda”).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Makino discloses the positive electrode active material for the lithium ion secondary battery according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Makino and Song are silent on a carbon content of the positive electrode active material for the lithium ion secondary battery being 0.05 mass% or more and 0.40 mass% or less.
However, in the same field of endeavor of positive electrode active materials for lithium ion secondary batteries (see abstract), Oda discloses a lithium transition metal positive electrode active material layer that has a carbon content of 0.010% by mass to 0.100% by mass and further discloses specific examples where the carbon content is 0.095%, 0.2%, 0.3%, etc. (see abstract, paragraphs [0022]-[0029] and [0144]-[0145], and Table 1). These values fall within and therefore anticipate the claimed range of a carbon content of the positive electrode active material for the lithium ion secondary battery being 0.05 mass% or more and 0.40 mass% or less.
Oda additionally discloses controlling the carbon content of the positive electrode active material to be within the above-mentioned range can improve output characteristics of the battery (see paragraphs [0032] and [0035]). Oda further discloses when the carbon content in the positive electrode active material becomes excessive, contact between the positive electrode active material and electrolyte is obstructed, and the positive electrode resistance increases and a minute amount of carbon promotes contact among the positive electrode active material (see paragraphs [0049]-[0053]). As such, the carbon content of the positive electrode active material is a result effective variable and the discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the positive electrode active material for the lithium ion secondary battery disclosed by Makino and Song wherein a carbon content of the positive electrode active material for the lithium ion secondary battery is 0.05 mass% or more and 0.40 mass% or less, as disclosed Oda, in order to optimize the output characteristics of the battery.
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 SYDNEY L KLINE whose telephone number is (703)756-1729. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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 Ruddock 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.
/S.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights