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
The amendment filed on 10 February 2026 has been entered, but does not place the application in condition for allowance. Claims 1 and 5 are currently amended, claim 4 is canceled, and new claims 8-10 are added.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments addressing the previous rejection of claims 4-6 under 35 USC 112(b) as indefinite do not overcome the rejection.
Applicant’s arguments concerning the previous rejection of claims 1-7 as unpatentable over Ishikawa et al. in view of Yamaguchi are persuasive and the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments concerning the previous rejection of claims 1, 4, and 7 as unpatentable over Makimura et al are not persuasive, and the rejection is maintained, as are the other rejections relying upon Makimura et al.
New rejections follow.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because it largely includes limitations that are already present in claim 1, from which it depends. Applicant should remove the redundant limitations for clarity. It appears the further limitation required by the claim is that a is required to be within the range of 1.29 ≤ a ≤ 1.35. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-10 are 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation, “where M is at least one metal element excluding Li and Mn, or Si, and includes at least the element A1” at lines 9-10, while having earlier specified in lines 4-5 that element A1 is selected from the group consisting of Ca, Al, and Si. These limitations are in conflict, as they seem to simultaneously include and exclude Si from the composition, rendering the claim indefinite.
It is recommended that lines 9-10 of claim 1 be amended to read, “. . . (where M includes at least the element A1 and at least one metal element other than Li and Mn, and 1 ≤ a ≤ 1.35 . . .” or similar.
It is noted that claim 8 includes a similar limitation that would also need to be amended, but should instead be removed (see claim objection above)
Claims 2, 3, and 5-10 depend from claim 1 and are therefore rejected for the same reasons.
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.
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 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makimura et al (JP 20200087638).
Regarding claim 1, Makimura teaches a positive electrode active material for a secondary battery comprising: a lithium metal composite oxide (machine translation: [0010]-[0011]), the lithium metal composite oxide having a crystal structure based on a rock salt structure belonging to a space group Fm-3m ([0014] and [0047] teach the lithium metal composite oxide is based on Fm-3m rock salt type), wherein
The lithium metal composite oxide contains an element A1 of at least one selected from the group consisting of Ca, Al, and Si ([0016] teaches the composition of the lithium composite oxide including M, which may be Al, which is a claimed species).
Makimura further teaches Li(2+2x)/(2+x)Mn(2/(2+x))-yMyO2, wherein 0.1<x<0.6 and 0≤y≤0.2 ([0016]). Makimura further teaches that M can be Al, which reads on the limitation of “M is at least one metal element excluding Li and Mn and including at least the element A1.” Given the taught ranges of x and y, the expression (2+2x)/(2+x) (subscript of Li corresponding to the claimed subscript a) ranges between 1.05 and 1.23, which is within the claimed range for a. Additionally, the expression (2/(2+x))-y (subscript of Mn corresponding to the claimed subscript b) ranges between 0.57 and 0.95 which overlaps the claimed range for b. The taught range for y, which corresponds to the claimed subscript c, also overlaps with the claimed range. Accordingly, the sum of the disclosed ranges of Li, Mn, and M in the formula corresponds to a range of about 1.62 to 2.38, that is (lower boundary: 1.05+0.57+0; upper boundary: 1.23+0.95+0.2) which overlaps with the sum of claimed ranges for a + b + c, about 0.4 to 2.45. Makimura’s taught formula also teaches the subscript on oxygen as 2, which is within the claimed range. Furthermore, the taught formula corresponds to an instance of the claimed formula wherein d = 0, i.e. no fluorine is present.
Makimura does not teach in the lithium metal composite oxide, a total of Al contents relative to a total of the lithium metal composite oxide is 10 to 1000 ppm by mass.
However, Makimura does teach that the composition of the lithium metal composite oxide includes M, and teaches Al as a suitable option for M, and further teaches that substitution of Mn for M can further increase the capacity retention rate. Makimura also teaches a molar range for M in the composition formula, stating that when the subscript y of M is in range, such as y≤0.1, the discharge capacity can be further improved ([0016]); therefore, the amount of Al in the formula is a result-effective variable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use routine experimentation to adjust the mass amount of Al in the lithium metal composite oxide to the claimed range to further improve the capacity retention rate.
Regarding claim 7, Makimura teaches the positive electrode active material of claim 1 and also teaches a positive electrode, a negative electrode, an electrolyte, and a separator interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode wherein the positive electrode includes the positive electrode active material ([0010], [0025]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makimura et al (JP 2020087638 A) as applied to claim 1 above. Supporting evidence is provided by Ishikawa et al (US 20190221838 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Makimura teaches the positive electrode active material of claim 1, but does not teach the lithium metal composite oxide has a vacancy at a cation site in the crystal structure. However, Ishikawa in the same field of endeavor teaches the cation lithium in the lithium metal composite oxide having a crystal structure belonging to space group Fm-3m diffuses through adjacent Li or vacancies ([0015]), thereby providing supporting evidence that the vacancy is at a cation site in the crystal structure of the positive electrode active material.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makimura et al (JP 2020087638 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ishikawa et al (US 20190221838 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Makimura teaches the positive electrode active material of claim 1 but does not teach the lithium metal composite oxide includes fluorine.
In the same field of endeavor, Ishikawa teaches a lithium composite oxide containing Mn that contains fluorine ([0096], [0098]). Ishikawa further teaches that partially replacing oxygen with fluorine stabilizes the crystal structure and increases cation-anion interaction, resulting in increased battery capacity ([0099]). Given that Makimura discloses that there is a demand for composite oxides that can further improve discharge capacity and durability ([0006]), one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify Makimura’s positive electrode active material to partially replace oxygen with fluorine to increase the battery capacity, as taught by Ishikawa.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makimura et al (JP 2020087638 A) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Endo et al (JP 2008156163 A).
Regarding claim 5, Makimura teaches the positive electrode active material of claim 4 but does not teach the metal element M includes at least one selected from the claimed species.
In the same field of endeavor, Endo teaches a lithium composite oxide may replace a part of Mn with a third metal element M that includes one or two elements selected from Al, Co, Ni, Mg, Zr, and Ti, to improve high temperature characteristics of the battery and to prevent manganese from eluting (machine translation: p4 para 2). They also teach that the amount of substitution is a result-effective variable; too large of a substitution of Mn can then cause discharge capacity to decrease (machine translation: p4 para 2). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Makimura’s positive electrode active material to replace Mn with Co, Ni, Mg, or Zr in addition to Al to improve high temperature characteristics of the battery and to prevent manganese from eluting, as taught by Endo. Accordingly, the claimed M of the instant application can include Co, Ni, Mg, or Zr, which are claimed species.
Regarding claim 6, the combination above teaches the positive electrode active material of claim 5 and as previously pointed out in addressing the limitations of claim 5, the metal element M can be Ni as claimed.
Claims 1-3 and 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al (US 2004/0091779) in view of Hua et al [Nature Communications (2019)10:5365]. Supporting evidence is provided by Ishikawa et al. (US 2019/0221838)
Regarding claim 1, Kang et al teaches a positive electrode active material for a secondary battery (Title) comprising a lithium metal composite oxide (Para 0008, 0028) wherein the lithium metal composite oxide contains Si or Al. (Para 0028; A’ can be Si or Al among other options), and a total Si or Al content relative to a total of the lithium metal composite oxide ranges below 500 ppm, which overlaps the claimed range. Para 0028 of Kang et al teaches that the amount of coating material, which can be a silicon or aluminum compound, can be as low as 0.05 weight percent of the composite oxide, which corresponds to 500 ppm. Although the specific compound is not specified, the silicon or aluminum content would necessarily be lower. For example, since the weight percentage of Si in SiO2 is about 47% (note that 0028 teaches an A’ oxide coating), the corresponding Si content at this lower end of the range would be about 233 ppm.
The general formula taught by Kang et al is Li1+xNiαMnβCoγM’δO2-zFz where x is between about 0 and 3, α and β are each between about 0.2 and 0.6, γ is between about 0 and 0.3, and δ is between about 0 and 0.15, which overlaps the claimed formula.
Kang et al does not teach that the lithium metal composite oxide has a crystal structure based on a rock salt structure belonging to a space group Fm-3m or that the composite oxide is represented by a composition formula LiaMnbMcO2-dFd where 1 ≤ a ≤ 1.35, 0.4 ≤ b ≤ 0.9, 0 ≤ c ≤ 0.2, 0 ≤ d ≤ 0.66, and 1.75 ≤ a+b+c ≤ 2.
Hua et al teach a particular set of compositions generally corresponding to the broader formula of Kang et al, namely LixNi0.2Mn0.6Oy where 0.00 ≤ a ≤ 1.52 and 1.07 ≤ y ≤ 2.4 (Abstract), and more specifically Li1.2Ni0.2Mn0.6O2 which is noted for its high capacity, low cost, and resource-friendly nature. (p 2, left column, 3rd paragraph) This composition meets the claimed composition, with a=1.2, b=0.6, c=0.2, d=0, and a+b+c=2. Hua et al further teach that these composite oxides include a rock-salt type Fm-3m phase. (p2, left column, 3rd paragraph)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the lithium composite oxide of Kang et al that is to be coated by specifically choosing a composition in which β is about 0.6, α is about 0.2, γ is 0, and z is 0, based on the teachings of Hua et al, due to this material’s high capacity, low cost, and resource friendly nature. The rock salt structure belonging to space group Fm-3m is considered to naturally follow from the teaching.
Regarding claim 2, modified Kang teaches the positive electrode active material of claim 1, but does not teach the lithium metal composite oxide has a vacancy at a cation site in the crystal structure. However, Ishikawa in the same field of endeavor teaches the cation lithium in the lithium metal composite oxide having a crystal structure belonging to space group Fm-3m diffuses through adjacent Li or vacancies ([0015]), thereby providing supporting evidence that the vacancy is at a cation site in the crystal structure of the positive electrode active material.
Regarding claim 3, modified Kang teaches the positive electrode active material of claim 1. Kang et al further teaches that adding fluorine dopants on oxygen sites reduces impedance and improves cycling stability at high temperature as well as room temperature. (Para 0024) Kang et al teaches a value of z between about 0 and 0.2 in the general formula Li1+xNiαMnβCoγM’δO2-zFz. Based on this, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the lithium composite oxide by incorporating fluorine dopants as taught by Kang et al to reduce impedance and improve cycling stability.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, modified Kang teaches the positive electrode active material of claim 1, which includes Ni, as described above.
Regarding claim 7, modified Kang teaches the positive electrode active material of claim 1. Hua et al is further relied upon for teaching conventional battery structure, including a positive electrode (including the positive electrode active material), negative electrode (Li metal) an electrolyte (LP30), and separator (two layers of Celgard 2325). (Methods section, “Battery Tests”, p 10, right column) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the positive electrode active material of modified Kang in a secondary battery having this structure, as this would have involved only known methods using structures and materials for their conventional functions, which would have predictably resulted in a functional secondary battery.
Regarding claim 8, modified Kang teaches the positive electrode active material of claim 1. Kang et al further teaches a value of x between about 0 and 0.3 in the general formula Li1+xNiαMnβCoγM’δO2-zFz, which would correspond to a value of a between 1 and 1.3, according to the claimed formula, which overlaps the narrowed range of 1.29-1.35 in the instant claim. 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)
Regarding claims 9 and 10, modified Kang teaches the positive electrode active material of claim 1. As noted above, Kang et al. teaches a coating material comprising Si. (Para 0028)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the previous rejection based on the combination of Ishikawa et al and Yamaguchi have been fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, Applicant’s argument that the elemental ratios of the composite oxide of Yamaguchi would be understood to correspond to a spinel structure rather than the rock salt of Ishikawa et al and the instant claims is well taken. The examiner agrees that one having skill in the art would not have been motivated to modify the composition of a cathode material of a rock salt structure based on benefits seen in a spinel structure, based on the teachings of this reference alone. The rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments concerning the rejection relying on Makimura et al. are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Makimura et al. fails to teach the claimed range of 10-1000 ppm by mass for the total content of Ca, Al, and Si with sufficient specificity. Applicant points out that the claimed range is much narrower than the preferred range of 0 ≤ y ≤ 0.1 of Makimura. Although the claimed range is indeed narrower than that taught by Makimura, it is within the range taught by the reference, and the reference supports the conclusion that the amount of M to be included (e.g. Al) is a result-effective variable by which the discharge capacity can be improved. This provides a prima facie case of obviousness.
In rebutting this, Applicant points to the data of Table 1 in support of the importance of the claimed range. The data shown here is insufficient to show the criticality of the claimed range. The comparative examples (B1 and B2) show over 34000 ppm Al and Si, respectively, while the inventive examples do not include total Si+Ca+Al contents above 500 ppm or below 170 ppm. The evidence here does not show that either 10 or 1000 ppm for the combined contents has any particular significance, nor is the significance of the Ca content demonstrated at all. As the evidence is not commensurate in scope with the claims, it is not persuasive of nonobviousness.
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 Jeffrey Barton, whose telephone number is (571) 272-1307. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:30 AM – 6:00 PM.
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.
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.
/JEFFREY T BARTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1726 29 May 2026
Prosecution Insights