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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restriction
Claims 17-18 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/17/2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of group 1, claims 1, 2, 4-7, 10-11, 14-16, and 21 in the reply filed on 9/17/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 10, 15, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogata (JP2012/190773, Machine Translation) in view of Choi (ChemSusChem 2019, 12, 2439 – 2446), Kim (NPG Asia Materials (2017) 9, e398; doi:10.1038/am.2017.90), and Kang (JOURNAL OF RARE EARTHS, Vol. 26, No. 2, Apr. 2008, p. 279)
Regarding Claim 1, Ogata et al. teaches a secondary battery comprising a positive electrode, wherein the positive electrode comprises a positive electrode active material and a projection on a surface of the positive electrode active material, wherein the positive electrode active material, wherein the positive electrode active material comprises lithium, cobalt, nickel, magnesium, aluminum, and oxygen [Example 14-15, 0048-0049].
Ogata et al. is silent on the use of fluorine, Zr, and Y in the composition.
Choi et al. teaches the doping of Zr in a lithium-ion battery cathode material provides improved cyclic performance and rate capability. [Abstract].
Since Ogata et al. teaches the use of a lithium-based cathode material, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to apply the Zr of Choi et al. in the positive electrode material of Ogata et al. in order to provide improved cyclic performance and rate capability. [Abstract].
Tian et al. teaches yttrium doping of a cathode material of a lithium-ion battery, which resulted in improved morphology and electrochemical performances [Abstract].
Since Ogata et al. teaches the use of a lithium-based cathode material, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to apply the Yttrium of Tian et al. in the positive electrode material of Ogata et al. in order to provide improved morphology and electrochemical performances [Abstract].
Kim et al. teaches fluorine doping of a battery, the fluorine enhances the cyclability in the battery [Abstract]
Since Ogata et al. is concerned about a battery composition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to doped the positive electrode material of Ogata et al. with the fluorine of Kim et al. in order to enhance the cyclability in the battery [Abstract].
Modified Ogata et al. teaches all the structural limitations of the claim; therefore, it is the view of the examiner, based on the teaching of modified Ogata et al., has a reasonable basis to believe that the claimed properties are inherently possessed by the device of modified Ogata et al. meeting the limitation of “comprises a layered rock-salt crystal structure”
Since the PTO does not have proper means to conduct experiments, the burden of proof is now shifted to applicants to show otherwise. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977); In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 10, within the combination above, Ogata et al. is silent on wherein a concentration peak of aluminum is located in a region deeper than a region having one or more of a concentration peak of magnesium and a concentration peak of fluorine
Kim et al. teaches fluorine doping of a battery, the fluorine enhances the cyclability in the battery [Abstract]
Since Ogata et al. is concerned about a battery composition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to doped the battery composition of Ogata et al. with the fluorine of Kim et al. in order to enhance the cyclability in the battery [Abstract].
As the battery capacity and efficiency are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the composition of the battery, with said battery capacity and efficiency both changing as the composition of the battery is changed, the precise composition of the battery would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein a concentration peak of aluminum is located in a region deeper than a region having one or more of a concentration peak of magnesium and a concentration peak of fluorine” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the composition of the battery to obtain the desired balance between the battery capacity and efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 15, within the combination above, modified Ogata et al. teaches an electronic device comprising the secondary battery according to claim 1 [0006]
Regarding Claim 21, within the combination above, modified Ogata et al. is silent on wherein the positive electrode active material comprises a region that is 5 nm to 30 nm inclusive in depth from the surface, and wherein the concentration peak of aluminum is located in the region.
As the battery capacity and efficiency are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the composition of the battery, with said battery capacity and efficiency both changing as the composition of the battery is changed, the precise composition of the battery would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein the positive electrode active material comprises a region that is 5 nm to 30 nm inclusive in depth from the surface, and wherein the concentration peak of aluminum is located in the region.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the composition of the battery to obtain the desired balance between the battery capacity and efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Claim(s) 2 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogata (JP2012/190773, Machine Translation) in view of Choi (ChemSusChem 2019, 12, 2439 – 2446), Kim (NPG Asia Materials (2017) 9, e398; doi:10.1038/am.2017.90), and Kang (JOURNAL OF RARE EARTHS, Vol. 26, No. 2, Apr. 2008, p. 279) as applied above in addressing claim 1, in further view of Wangda (J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2019, 141, 5097−5101)
Regarding Claim 2, within the combination above, modified Ogata et al. is silent on wherein the projection comprises a crystal structure that is tetragonal, cubic, or a mixture of two phases, tetragonal and cubic, and wherein a shape of the projection is a part of a rectangular solid.
Wangda et al. teaches a LiNiCoMnO2 structure which varies the Ni, Co, and Mn [Abstract] to maximize the charge storage, but also results in changes to the lattice [Abstract].
Since modified Ogata et al. teaches the use of a LiNiCoMnO2 based cathode material, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to adjust the Ni, Co, and Mn to Ogata et al. with the adjustments as taught by Wangda et al. in order to maximize the charge storage capacity of the lithium-ion battery [Abstract].
As the lattice structure and efficiency are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the composition of the battery, with said lattice structure and efficiency both changing as the composition of the battery is changed, the precise composition of the battery would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein the projection comprises a crystal structure that is tetragonal, cubic, or a mixture of two phases, tetragonal and cubic, and wherein a shape of the projection is a part of a rectangular solid. ” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the composition of the battery to obtain the desired balance between the lattice structure and efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 11, within the combination above, modified Ogata et al. is silent on wherein a proportion of the number of cobalt atoms to a sum of the number of cobalt atoms and the number of nickel atoms included in the positive electrode active material is higher than or equal to 90 atomic %
Wangda et a. teaches a LiNiCoMnO2 based structure which varies the Ni, Co, and Mn [Abstract] to maximize the charge storage, but also result in changes to the lattice [Abstract].
Since Ogata et al. teaches the use of a LiNiCoMnO2 based structure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to adjust the Ni, Co, and Mn to Ogata et al. with the adjustments taught by Wangda et al. in order to maximize the charge storage capacity of the lithium-ion battery [Abstract].
As the lattice structure and efficiency are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the composition of the battery, with said lattice structure and efficiency both changing as the composition of the battery is changed, the precise composition of the battery would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein a proportion of the number of cobalt atoms to a sum of the number of cobalt atoms and the number of nickel atoms included in the positive electrode active material is higher than or equal to 90 atomic %” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the composition of the battery to obtain the desired balance between the lattice structure and efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Claim(s) 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogata (JP2012/190773, Machine Translation) in view of Choi (ChemSusChem 2019, 12, 2439 – 2446), Kim (NPG Asia Materials (2017) 9, e398; doi:10.1038/am.2017.90), and Kang (JOURNAL OF RARE EARTHS, Vol. 26, No. 2, Apr. 2008, p. 279) as applied above in addressing claim 1, in further view of Albrecht (Journal of Power Sources 119–121 (2003) 178–183)
Regarding Claim 4, within the combination above, modified Ogata et al. is silent on wherein the positive electrode active material comprises a surface portion and an inner portion, and wherein concentrations of magnesium and aluminum in the surface portion are higher than concentrations of magnesium and aluminum in the inner portion.
Albrecht et al. teaches the incorporation of Al and Mg into a lithium nickel cobalt oxide material which varies the Al and Mg concentrations [Abstract]
Since Ogata et al. teaches the use of a battery composition comprising Al and Mg, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to adjust the Al and Mg of Ogata et al. with the adjustments taught by Albercht et al. in order to stabilize and enhance the cycling stability [Abstract]
As the battery capacity and efficiency are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the composition of the battery, with said battery capacity and efficiency both changing as the composition of the battery is changed, the precise composition of the battery would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein the positive electrode active material comprises a surface portion and an inner portion, and wherein concentrations of magnesium and aluminum in the surface portion are higher than concentrations of magnesium and aluminum in the inner portion.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the composition of the battery to obtain the desired balance between the battery capacity and efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 5, within the combination above, modified Ogata et al. is silent on wherein the positive electrode active material comprises a plurality of crystal grains and a crystal grain boundary between the plurality of crystal grains, and wherein concentration of magnesium and aluminum in a vicinity of the crystal grain boundary are higher than the concentrations of magnesium and aluminum in the inner portion.
Albrecht et al. teaches the incorporation of Al and Mg into a lithium nickel cobalt oxide material which varies the Al and Mg concentrations [Abstract]
Since Ogata et al. teaches the use of a battery composition comprising Al and Mg, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to adjust the Al and Mg of Ogata et al. with the adjustments taught by Albercht et al. in order to stabilize and enhance the cycling stability [Abstract]
As the battery capacity and efficiency are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the composition of the battery, with said battery capacity and efficiency both changing as the composition of the battery is changed, the precise composition of the battery would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein the positive electrode active material comprises a plurality of crystal grains and a crystal grain boundary between the plurality of crystal grains, and wherein concentration of magnesium and aluminum in a vicinity of the crystal grain boundary are higher than the concentrations of magnesium and aluminum in the inner portion.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the composition of the battery to obtain the desired balance between the battery capacity and efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 6, within the combination above, modified Ogata et al. is silent on wherein the positive electrode active material comprises a crack, and wherein concentrations of magnesium and aluminum in a vicinity of the crack are higher than the concentrations of magnesium and aluminum in the inner portion
Albrecht et al. teaches the incorporation of Al and Mg into a lithium nickel cobalt oxide material which varies the Al and Mg concentrations [Abstract]
Since Ogata et al. teaches the use of a battery composition comprising Al and Mg, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to adjust the Al and Mg of Ogata et al. with the adjustments taught by Albercht et al. in order to stabilize and enhance the cycling stability [Abstract]
As the battery capacity and efficiency are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the composition of the battery, with said battery capacity and efficiency both changing as the composition of the battery is changed, the precise composition of the battery would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein the positive electrode active material comprises a crack, and wherein concentrations of magnesium and aluminum in a vicinity of the crack are higher than the concentrations of magnesium and aluminum in the inner portion” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the composition of the battery to obtain the desired balance between the battery capacity and efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 7, within the combination above, modified Ogata et al. is silent on wherein the positive electrode active material comprises a defect, and wherein concentrations of magnesium and aluminum in a vicinity of the defect are higher than the concentrations of magnesium and aluminum in the inner portion
Albrecht et al. teaches the incorporation of Al and Mg into a lithium nickel cobalt oxide material which varies the Al and Mg concentrations [Abstract]
Since Ogata et al. teaches the use of a battery composition comprising Al and Mg, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to adjust the Al and Mg of Ogata et al. with the adjustments taught by Albercht et al. in order to stabilize and enhance the cycling stability [Abstract]
As the battery capacity and efficiency are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the composition of the battery, with said battery capacity and efficiency both changing as the composition of the battery is changed, the precise composition of the battery would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein the positive electrode active material comprises a defect, and wherein concentrations of magnesium and aluminum in a vicinity of the defect are higher than the concentrations of magnesium and aluminum in the inner portion” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the composition of the battery to obtain the desired balance between the battery capacity and efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogata (JP2012/190773, Machine Translation) in view of Choi (ChemSusChem 2019, 12, 2439 – 2446), Kim (NPG Asia Materials (2017) 9, e398; doi:10.1038/am.2017.90), and Kang (JOURNAL OF RARE EARTHS, Vol. 26, No. 2, Apr. 2008, p. 279) as applied above in addressing claim 1, in further view of Roumi (US Pub No. 2013/0017432)
Regarding Claim 14, within the combination above, modified Ogata et al. is silent on wherein the positive electrode comprises graphene or a graphene compound, and wherein the graphene or the graphene compound is located along the surface of the positive electrode active material.
Roumi et al. teaches a positive electrode comprising graphene [0106].
Since Ogata et al. teaches the use of a positive electrode, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to apply the graphene of Roumi et al. on the positive electrode of Ogata et al. as it is merely the selection a conventional material for positive electrodes in the art and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogata (JP2012/190773, Machine Translation) in view of Choi (ChemSusChem 2019, 12, 2439 – 2446), Kim (NPG Asia Materials (2017) 9, e398; doi:10.1038/am.2017.90), and Kang (JOURNAL OF RARE EARTHS, Vol. 26, No. 2, Apr. 2008, p. 279) as applied above in addressing claim 1, in further view of Ohara (US Pub No. 2018/0241075)
Regarding Claim 16, within the combination above, modified Ogata et al. is silent on a vehicle comprising the secondary battery according to claim 1.
Ohara et al. teaches a secondary battery comprising a NCM based material for a vehicle [0030].
Since Ogata et al. teaches the use of a battery, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to apply the battery of Ogata et al. in the vehicle of Ohara et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional battery for vehicles in the art and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL Y SUN whose telephone number is (571)270-0557. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-7PM.
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 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.
/MICHAEL Y SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728