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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/01/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Examiner notes the following amendments made to the claims:
Claim 1 amended to further specify that the contents of Cr and Ca are greater than a content of W in the surface modified layer
Claim 3 amended to include minor wording changes
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, the previously applied prior art, as well as newly incorporated prior art, teach a combination of Sr and Ca, and W, where it would obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art to modify the proportions of additives such that there is a higher ratio of Sr and Ca to W. Murakami teaches a composition that could meet all of the claimed elements. Further, Eom (US 20220190326 A1) teaches a surface modified layer/coating that even more explicitly includes the claimed components ("and a coating portion formed on surfaces of the lithium composite transition metal oxide particles, wherein the coating portion includes a compound including fluorine and at least one selected from the group consisting of aluminum (Al), titanium (Ti), magnesium (Mg), zirconium (Zr), tungsten (W), and strontium (Sr)," Eom abstract). Eom is not used in the below rejection, since Ooyama also teaches the requisite limitations, but is mentioned to show another reference teaching the claimed subject matter. It would be within the realm of routine experimentation to use the materials listed and to alter the amount added. Additionally, examiner does not find applicant argument that Ooyama fails to teach the desired W amount to be persuasive. Specifically, by limiting the percent of W to 20% or less, the range that is smaller than that would overlap with the claimed molar range, if the active material of Murakami were being used. Lastly, claim 1 is newly rejected under 35 USC 112 (b) because it is unclear whether the claim requires both calcium and strontium to be present, versus only one of the two. Find further reasoning below in 112(b) rejection.
Claim 3 is allowed, if the subject matter of claim 3 were incorporated into claim 1, and claim 1 is reworded to overcome the 112 rejection (and claim 3 worded to match), the application would be in condition for allowance.
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 being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim 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, amended claim 1 states “the surface modified layer contains at least one of the group consisting of Sr and Ca” which only requires one of the two, and then later states “such that the contents of Sr and Ca are greater,” which requires both to be present. It is unclear to examiner whether one or both need to be present, and an amendment to further clarify is requested. Examiner notes that claim 3 also states “the contents of Sr and Ca,” thus limiting the subject matter to including both. If applicant only requires one of the two, it is recommended that claim 3 also be amended to state “the contents of Sr and/or Ca” or the like. Claim 3 not outright rejected however, since it does not contradict itself in the same way as claim 1.
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) 1-2, 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami (US 20200266440 A1) in view of Ooyama (US 20070224506 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Murakami teaches all of the following elements:
A positive electrode active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery, including: (“The present invention can provide a positive electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery that suffers less generation of gas and suppresses battery swelling, a positive electrode using the same, and a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery using the same.” Murakami [0046])
a lithium-transition metal composite oxide having secondary particles formed by aggregation of primary particles; (“The present embodiment relates to a positive electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery, which is in the form of particles, and includes a lithium-containing composite metal compound in the form of secondary particles that are aggregates of primary particles” Murakami [0052] and “ In the present embodiment, a coating layer including a metal composite oxide including lithium and zirconium is provided” Murakami [0087])
and a surface-modified layer formed on surfaces of the primary particles of the lithium-transition metal composite oxide, (“In the present embodiment, the entire surface of the lithium-containing composite metal compound is covered with the coating layer.” Murakami [0081] and “ the positive electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery includes a lithium-containing composite metal compound and a coating layer that coats the lithium-containing composite metal compound. In this instance, the lithium-containing composite metal compound preferably includes a compound containing at least lithium, nickel, and an element M2. Further, the coating layer preferably includes an element X and a compound having a lithium conductivity.” Murakami [0191]—this implies that the composite oxide used for the positive electrode active material and for the coating layer are the same except for the inclusion of element X in the coating layer, which can be Al, Zr, W, Mo, or Nb. [Murakami 0191])
wherein the lithium-transition metal composite oxide contains at least: Al, and 80 mol% or more of Ni based on a total number of moles of metal elements excluding Li; (“Such a positive electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery preferably has a composition represented by formula (I) below: Li[Lix(NiaCobMncM2dXe)1-x]O2 (I) wherein −0.1≤x≤0.2, 0.5≤a<1, 0≤b≤0.3, 0≤c≤0.3, 0≤d≤0.1, 0<e≤0.1, a+b+c+d+e=1, M2 is at least one element selected from the group consisting of Mg, Ca, Sr, Ba, Zn, B, Ga, Ti, Ge, Fe, Cu, Cr, V, Sc, Y, La, Ta, Tc, Ru, Rh, Pd, Ag, Cd, In, and Sn, and X is at least one element selected from the group consisting of Al, Zr, W, Mo and Nb.” Murakami [0191] In this case, if subscript a was equal to 0.9 and b, c, d, and e were 0.025, as is within their provided range, there would be more than 80 mol% Ni based on all of the other metal elements excluding Li, meeting the above limitation)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art ranges for the molar ratio and element selection of Ni and W (X in the case of prior art), 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
Murakami composition [0191]
Lithium transition metal oxide
Subscript /molar range
Li[Lix(NiaCobMncM2dXe)1-x]O2
Subscript range
Li
unspecified
Li
-0.1≤ x ≤ 0.2, 0.9 ≤ Li ≤ 1.2
Ni
80% or more of non-Li metals
Ni
0.5 ≤ a < 1a+b+c+d+e = 1
Al
unspecified
X (at least one of Al, Zr, W, Mo and Nb)
0 ≤ e ≤ 0.3
Sr, Ca, or W
W less than 0.075 mol%
M2 (at least one of Mg, Ca, Sr, Ba, Zn, B, Ga, Ti, Ge, Fe, Cu, Cr, V, Sc, Y, La, Ta, Tc, Ru, Rh, Pd, Ag, Cd, In, and Snor X (at least one of Al, Zr, W, Mo and Nb)
0≤d≤0.10 ≤ e ≤ 0.3
Unspecified in claim, but not limited to only Nickel. Cites Co and Mn in specification paragraph [0029]
Unspecified
Co and Mn
0 ≤ b ≤0.3 0 ≤ c ≤ 0.3
Murakami is silent on the following elements of claim 1:
the surface-modified layer contains at least one of the group consisting of Sr and Ca, and W, such that contents of Sr and Ca are greater than a content of W in the surface-modified later,
and a content of W in the surface-modified layer is 0.075 mol% or less and 0.01 mol% or more based on the total number of moles of the metal elements excluding Li in the lithium-transition metal composite oxide.
However, Ooyama teaches all of the elements of claim 1 that are not found in Murakami. Specifically, Ooyama teaches a surface coating for a cathode active material which meets the limitations of claim 1:
the surface-modified layer contains at least one of the group consisting of Sr and Ca, and W, (“According to an embodiment, there is provided a battery including a cathode, an anode and an electrolyte, wherein the cathode includes a cathode active material in which a coating layer is arranged on at least a part of complex oxide particles,” Ooyama [0012] and “The coating layer may further include at least one member selected from the group consisting of magnesium, aluminum, boron, titanium, vanadium, chromium, iron, cobalt, copper, zinc, molybdenum, tin, tungsten, zirconium, yttrium, niobium, calcium, strontium and silicon” Ooyama [0028]. Given the options provided, it would be within the abilities of one skilled in the art to include strontium or calcium, tungsten, and aluminum in the coating layer.)
such that contents of Sr and Ca are greater than a content of W in the surface-modified later,(It would be within the realm of routine experimentation to use the materials listed and to alter the amount added, thus forming a layer having a greater proportion of Sr and/or Ca to the amount of W present.)
and the content of W in the surface-modified layer is 0.075 mol% or less and 0.01 mol% or more based on the total number of moles of the metal elements excluding Li in the lithium-transition metal composite oxide. (“In this case, the total content of the elements is preferably 40 mol % or less, more preferably 30 mol % or less and most preferably 20 mol % or less with respect to the total of nickel, manganese and the elements in the coating layer.” Ooyama [0028])
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of ------less than 20 mol % of all the additional metal elements, which can include tungsten, calcium, strontium, aluminum, etc. other than nickel and manganese encompasses the claimed range of 0.01-0.075 mol % of tungsten based on the total number of moles of the metal elements excluding Li in the lithium-transition metal composite oxide. 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.
Ooyama is considered to be analogous to Murakami because they are both within the same field of positive electrode materials for secondary batteries containing surface modifying/coating layers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coating layer of Murakami to substitute it with the coating layer of Ooyama, as this would be the simple substitution of one coating layer for a positive electrode active material with 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.). It would also be obvious to modify the surface layer of Murakami to include calcium, strontium, or aluminum, as these are all options taught to be used in a coating layer in Ooyama, and therefore would be known as a valid option to include in the art.
Based on this modification, the additional limitations of claim 2-4 would all be met without requiring any further modification or motivation.
Regarding claim 2, modified Murakami teaches all of the following elements:
The positive electrode active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the surface-modified layer further contains Al. (“each of the secondary particles having on its surface a coating layer including a metal composite oxide including lithium and aluminum,” Murakami [0009])
This limitation would additionally be met by simply substituting the coating layer of Murakami with that of Ooyama, as Ooyama teaches the inclusion of Aluminum in its coating layer as well (“The coating layer may further include at least one member selected from the group consisting of magnesium, aluminum, boron, titanium, vanadium, chromium, iron, cobalt, copper, zinc, molybdenum, tin, tungsten, zirconium, yttrium, niobium, calcium, strontium and silicon” Ooyama [0028].)
Regarding claim 4, modified Murakami teaches all of the following elements:
A non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery, comprising: a positive electrode including the positive electrode active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 1 (“The present invention can provide a positive electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery that suffers less generation of gas and suppresses battery swelling, a positive electrode using the same, and a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery using the same.” Murakami [0046])
a negative electrode; (“In one example of the lithium secondary battery of the present embodiment, the lithium secondary battery includes a positive electrode, a negative electrode, a separator interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode, and an electrolytic solution disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode.” Murakami [0241])
and a non-aqueous electrolyte. (“A solid electrolyte may be used instead of the aforementioned electrolytic solution. As the solid electrolyte, it is possible to use, for example, an organic polymer electrolyte such as a polyethylene oxide-type polymeric compound or a polymeric compound including at least one type of polymer chain selected from a polyorganosiloxane chain or a polyoxyalkylene chain. It is also possible to use the so-called gel-type electrolyte including a polymer retaining therein a non-aqueous electrolytic solution.” Murakami [0281])
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 indicated to include allowable subject matter. Claim 3 is objected to due to its dependence on claim 1, which is rejected.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: By further limiting claim 1 to specify the contents of Sr and Ca in the surface-modified layer, the claim overcomes the previously and currently applied prior art, and there is not a piece of art or obvious combination/modification of art that meets each and every limitation of claim 3. The closest pieces of prior art (Murakami, Ooyama, Eom) teach a surface modified layer including the claimed compounds, but it would not be obvious to modify all of the ratio of Sr/Ca to W, the mol% of W, and the mol% of Sr and Ca to come to the claimed product. If the subject matter of claim 3 were incorporated into claim 1, and the 112 issues were fixed, the application would be in condition for allowance.
Conclusion
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