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 .
Status of Claims
Claim 1 is amended. Claims 4 and 5 are cancelled. Claims 8-9 are newly added. Claims 1-3 and 6-9, as filed 27 October 2025, are examined herein. No new matter is included.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejection under 35 USC 103, Applicant argues that Imahashi does not teach or disclose wherein the electrolyte solution is a multi-nitrile compound, therefore Imahashi, even if properly combinable with Kawakami, is distinguished from the claimed invention. This is not persuasive. Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
In response to applicant's argument that the claimed limitation contributes to enhanced battery characteristics, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Regarding the rejection of claim 7, Applicant argues that Imahashi Example 15 does not teach all of the limitations of claim 7. This argument is moot in light of a newly cited reference from Imahashi.
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) 1-3, 6, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imahashi (US 20140087262 A1) in view of Kawakami (US 20180102536 A1) and in further view of Xia (US 20180254525 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Imahashi teaches a secondary battery (abstract) comprising:
a positive electrode including a positive electrode active material layer (abstract, [0102);
a negative electrode; ([0102] metallic lithium)
an electrolytic solution ([0102] EC and DMC),
wherein the positive electrode active material layer includes a lithium-nickel composite oxide represented by Formula (1) below, (Table 1 Example 15 Li0.97Ni0.799Co0.152Al0.039Zn0.01O2)
Regarding the limitation that a ratio X of an atomic concentration of Al to an atomic concentration of Ni satisfies a condition represented by Expression (2) below, according to an analysis of the positive electrode active material layer performed at an inner part at a depth of 100 nanometers of the positive electrode active material layer by the X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy, a ratio Y of the atomic concentration of Al to the atomic concentration of Ni satisfies a condition represented by Expression (3) below, and a ratio Z of the ratio X to the ratio Y satisfies a condition represented by Expression (4) below, Examiner notes that Imahashi does not explicitly teach these ratios. However, Imahashi teaches (FIG. 2) the amount of aluminum is substantially higher at the surface of the particle (0-10 nm) and that the amount of Ni is slightly lower at the surface and teaches [0032] and that the amount of amphoteric metal (e.g. aluminum) at the surface of the particle is higher than the amount of amphoteric metal at a position 50 nm from the surface. At [0033] and [0053] Imahashi teaches wherein the concentration of the amphoteric metal on the outermost surface of the respective Li Ni composite oxide particles is 5 to 60 atom% based on a total concentration of Ni, Co, Mn. Examiner notes that because the amount of Ni is large, and the amounts of Co and Mn are small and zero, respectively, that this limitation overlaps or encompasses the limitation of the instant claim where X (the ratio of Al:Ni at the surface) is between 0.3 and 0.7. At [0041] Imahashi contemplates that if the surface is provided with a uniform coating layer having a high amphoteric metal concentration, (e.g.) and therefore the resulting secondary battery
can be prevented from generating gases owing to decomposition of an electrolyte solution upon charging and discharging under high-temperature conditions, and can exhibit good cycle characteristics. At [0053] Imahashi contemplates that if the surface amphoteric metal is too high, capacity tends to deteriorate, and if the surface amphoteric metal is too low, the benefits of the invention [e.g. reduced electrolyte deterioration] are not produced.
PNG
media_image1.png
342
886
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
74
944
media_image2.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to optimize the surface concentration of Al as compared to Ni, in order to decrease gas generation from decomposition of the electrolyte and obtain good cycle characteristics, with a reasonable expectation of meeting the claimed limitation X. Examiner notes that the overall composition of the particle as taught in Example 15 falls within the claimed Formula (1), and therefore if the limitation X is met with respect to the surface composition, then the limitation Y with respect to the core composition and the limitation Z (ratio of Y and X) will also be met).
Regarding the lithium-nickel composite oxide having a layered rock-salt type structure, Imahashi at [0003] discloses that LiCoO2 and LiNiO2 commonly have a layered rock-salt structure, however Imahashi does not explicitly teach that Imahashi’s composition has a layered rock-salt structure, and Imahashi does not explicitly teach wherein the electrolytic solution includes a multi-nitrile compound, and wherein the content of the multi-nitrile compound in the electrolyte solution is greater than or equal to 0.5 weight percent and less than or equal to 3.0 weight percent.
Kawakami, in the field of (abstract) lithium composite compound particles for secondary batteries, discloses [0096] a positive active material with a similar composition, having a layered rock-salt crystal structure.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have expected, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, that Imahashi’ s positive active material has a layered rock-salt crystal structure, based on the teaching of Kawakami.
Kawakami further discloses [0187] that an additive agent such as succinonitrile can be added to the electrolyte solution at 0.1 to 5 wt%. However, Kawakami is silent on a specific benefit of the addition of succinonitrile to the electrolyte.
Xia, in the field of (abstract) electrolyte composition for a lithium secondary cell, discloses (abstract) the addition of 0.5 to 3% succinonitrile to an electrolyte solution and discloses [0102] that the succinonitrile has a positive effect on storage performance.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to modify the electrolyte of modified Imahashi by adding 0.5 to 3% succinonitrile, with a reasonable expectation of successfully improving storage performance.
Regarding claim 2, Imahashi in view of Kawakami and Xia teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Imahashi further teaches wherein d in Formula (1) above meets the limitation d>0. (Table 1 Example 15 Li0.97Ni0.799Co0.152Al0.039Zn0.01O2)
Regarding claim 3, Imahashi in view of Kawakami and Xia teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Imahashi does not explicitly teach further comprising an outer package member having flexibility and containing the positive electrode, the negative electrode, and the electrolytic solution.
Kawakami, in a similar field of endeavor, discloses (FIG. 15C, FIG. 15D, and [0272]) a bendable packaging containing positive electrode, the negative electrode, and the electrolytic solution. “As a result, the battery 250 can be bent with weak force without damage to the exterior body 251.”
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to select the bendable packaging as taught by Kawakami for the battery of modified Imahashi, with a reasonable expectation of successfully achieving the desirable effect of a bendable battery without damage to the exterior body.
Regarding claim 6, Imahashi in view of Kawakami and Xia teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Imahashi further teaches wherein the secondary battery comprises a lithium-ion secondary battery. (abstract: a secondary battery using the lithium composite compound particles)
Regarding claim 9, Imahashi in view of Kawakami and Xia teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Imahashi does not teach the multi-nitrile compound includes two or more multi-nitrile compounds different from each other. Kawakami, in the field of (abstract) lithium composite compound particles for secondary batteries, discloses [0182] that the electrolyte solution may include acetonitrile, benzonitrile, … or two or more solvents used in an appropriate ratio. The motivation to select a multi-nitrile solvent, as set forth in claim 1, is incorporated herein by reference.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to select two or more multi-nitrile compounds as taught by Kawakami for the electrolyte of modified Imahashi, because the selection of two or more multi-nitrile compounds is one of a finite number of possible solutions to the problem of electrolyte solvent selection, as set forth by Kawakami, with a reasonable likelihood of success.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imahashi (US 20140087262 A1) in view of Kawakami (US 20180102536 A1).
Regarding claims 7-8, Imahashi teaches a secondary battery (abstract) comprising:
a positive electrode including a positive electrode active material layer (abstract, [0102);
a negative electrode; ([0102] metallic lithium)
an electrolytic solution ([0102] EC and DMC),
wherein the positive electrode active material layer includes a lithium-nickel composite oxide represented by Formula (1) below, ([0031] teaching an encompassing formula, and Table 1 Example 10 teaching Li1.02Ni0.81Co0.15Al0.04O2, which falls within the instant claim limitation)
PNG
media_image3.png
356
1012
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding the limitation that a ratio X of an atomic concentration of Al to an atomic concentration of Ni satisfies a condition represented by Expression (2) below, according to an analysis of the positive electrode active material layer performed at an inner part at a depth of 100 nanometers of the positive electrode active material layer by the X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy, a ratio Y of the atomic concentration of Al to the atomic concentration of Ni satisfies a condition represented by Expression (3) below, and a ratio Z of the ratio X to the ratio Y satisfies a condition represented by Expression (4) below,
Examiner notes that Imahashi does not explicitly teach these ratios. However, Imahashi teaches (FIG. 2)
the amount of aluminum is substantially higher at the surface of the particle (0-10 nm) and that the amount of Ni is slightly lower at the surface and teaches [0032] and that the amount of amphoteric metal (e.g. aluminum) at the surface of the particle is higher than the amount of amphoteric metal at a position 50 nm from the surface. At [0033] and [0053] Imahashi teaches wherein the concentration of the amphoteric metal on the outermost surface of the respective Li Ni composite oxide particles is 5 to 60 atom% based on a total concentration of Ni, Co, Mn. Examiner notes that because the amount of Ni is large, and the amounts of Co and Mn are small and zero, respectively, that this limitation overlaps or encompasses the limitation of the instant claim where X (the ratio of Al:Ni at the surface) is between 0.3 and 0.7. At [0041] Imahashi contemplates that if the surface is provided with a uniform coating layer having a high amphoteric metal concentration, (e.g.) and therefore the resulting secondary battery
can be prevented from generating gases owing to decomposition of an electrolyte solution upon charging and discharging under high-temperature conditions, and can exhibit good cycle characteristics. At [0053] Imahashi contemplates that if the surface amphoteric metal is too high, capacity tends to deteriorate, and if the surface amphoteric metal is too low, the benefits of the invention [e.g. reduced electrolyte deterioration] are not produced.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to optimize the surface concentration of Al as compared to Ni, in order to decrease gas generation from decomposition of the electrolyte and obtain good cycle characteristics, with a reasonable expectation of meeting the claimed limitation X. Examiner notes that the overall composition of the particle as taught in Example 15 falls within the claimed Formula (1), and therefore if the limitation X is met with respect to the surface composition, then the limitation Y with respect to the core composition and the limitation Z (ratio of Y and X) will also be met).
Regarding the limitation 0 ≤ d ≤ 0.08, Examiner notes that for the value of d = 0, Example 10 of Imahashi meets this limitation. Thus claim 8 is also met since d = 0.
Regarding the lithium-nickel composite oxide having a layered rock-salt type structure, Imahashi at [0003] discloses that LiCoO2 and LiNiO2 commonly have a layered rock-salt structure, however Imahashi does not explicitly teach that Imahashi’s composition has a layered rock-salt structure.
Kawakami, in the field of (abstract) lithium composite compound particles for secondary batteries, discloses [0096] a positive active material with a similar composition, having a layered rock-salt crystal structure.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have expected, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, that Imahashi’s positive active material has a layered rock-salt crystal structure, based on the teaching of Kawakami.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hiratsuka (US 20090117469 A1), in the field of (abstract) positive electrode active materials, discloses (FIG. 3) a ternary diagram showing precursor materials LiCO2, LiMnO2, and LiNiO2. Referring to the LiMnO2-LiNiO2 axis of the ternary diagram, the gravimetric energy density of the battery increases as some of the LiMnO2 is replaced with LiNiO2. Examiner notes that Hiratsuka at [0017] contemplates doping with aluminum, and that doping with (inter alia) aluminum inhibits leaching of metallic ions during trickle charge, and the compositions contemplated in FIG. 3, with aluminum doping, encompasses the compositions of the instant claim 8 if d>0. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to optimize the Mn content of the positive active material of modified Imahashi, with a reasonable expectation of successfully increasing gravimetric energy density, which would result in a composition meeting the limitation of claim 8, with X >0.
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 CLAIRE A RUTISER whose telephone number is (571)272-1969. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM M-F.
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.
CLAIRE A. RUTISER
Examiner
Art Unit 1751
/C.A.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 2/18/2026