DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the August 25th, 2026 arguments and remarks (“Remarks”). The
text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior
Office 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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendments received on August 25th, 2026:
Claims 1-7 are pending in the present application. Claims 1 and 5 are amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed August 25th, 2026 have been fully considered as further described below (“OA” indicates the most recent office action of record):
Regarding Claim 1, applicant argues that the Patent Office contends that prior art reference Nakayama teaches simultaneous mixing and milling, while Nakayama rather teaches mixing using a mill; applicant further argues that a significant degree of milling is required to achieve the amorphous or low-crystalline structure of the claims (“Remarks,” pgs. 6-7).
1 “Obviousness can be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 986, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2006)” (see MPEP 2143.01).
As the claim does not specify mixing or milling conditions (i.e., length of time, speed, etc.), Kawasaki et al. is further cited to show that mechanically mixing an oxide for use as an electrode active material via milling to transform the crystal structure to an amorphous structure is known in the field of endeavor (para. 112). Further, the office recognizes that Nakayama does not teach distinct mixing and milling processes (para. 16 of OA); and the manufacturing process of Nakayama et al. is modified by Min Oh et al. to include a distinct mixing process followed by a mechanical milling process with a motivation to ensure thorough mixing of the active material prior to controlling or adjusting the particle size of the active material by mechanical milling (para. 50). Therefore, transforming an active material to an amorphous structure by a mixing/milling process and performing the mixing followed by milling separately is known in the prior art.
Applicant further argues that undertaking the significant extent of milling in Nakayama would destroy the required hollow structure of the active material particles (Remarks,” pgs. 7-8).
“Objective evidence which must be factually supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration to be of probative value includes evidence of unexpected results, commercial success, solution of a long-felt need, inoperability of the prior art, invention before the date of the reference, and allegations that the author(s) of the prior art derived the disclosed subject matter from the inventor or at least one joint inventor” (see MPEP 716.01(c)(I)).
Applicant’s conclusion is based on mere arguments rather than evidence. The claim language does not specify milling conditions to indicate that an unusual or significant amount of mixing is required to form the amorphous structure; applicant has not provided any evidence that said milling would destroy the particles of Nakayama and said conclusion is mere speculation. As the prior art recognizes that milling is a known method to obtain an amorphous structure, there is no indication in the prior art that milling would “destroy” or render the particles of the prior art inoperable or unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. Applicant has the opportunity to provide objective evidence to support said arguments.
Applicant argues that Nakayama fails to suggest mixing lithium phosphate with the hollow shell particles and rather teaches mixing reactants/precursor then converting them to lithium phosphate in a subsequent heat treatment (“Remarks,” pgs. 8-9).
It appears that the applicant has not considered Nakayama in its entirety. Nakayama teaches a mixing process of mixing the positive electrode active material (para. 58) in which can be a lithium transition metal oxide having a layered crystal structure (para. 42), with a lithium compound (para. 58) such as lithium phosphate (para. 49) as claimed. Therefore, Nakayama clearly teaches the claimed mixing step.
Regarding Claim 5, applicant argues that Nakayama nor Zheng provides motivation for a lithium phosphate coating layer, citing portions of Nakayama and Zheng suggesting improvements when lithium phosphate is rather absent from the surface of particles (“Remarks,” pgs. 10-12).
1 Zheng is cited below:
[0054] . . . The function of the lithium phosphate coating layer and the diffused solid electrolyte network is to block the entrance route for electrolyte to diffuse along the grain boundaries of primary particles within the secondary particles and effectively alleviate and buffer the detrimental influence from the micro strain generated during the Li+ ion extraction/insertion process, improving the structural integrity and/or the interfacial stability by suppressing the particle crack formation. In certain embodiments the disclosed cathode material consists of LiNiXMnYCoZO2 (NMC, wherein x+y+z=1) having primary and secondary particles, and wherein the secondary particles have a coating of lithium phosphate on an outer surface and/or lithium phosphate infused in spaces along the grain boundaries of the primary particles within the secondary particles.
Therefore, Zheng et al. clearly teaches a positive electrode material comprising lithium phosphate dispersed inside (infused or penetrated in spaces, [0054]) and coated on a surface of a secondary particle of a lithium transition metal composite oxide. The configuration improves the structural integrity and/or the interfacial stability by suppressing the particle crack formation; and prevents the formation of a SEI layer in which the SEI layer can lead to continuous cracking within the secondary particles. The prior art must be considered in its entirety.
Therefore, applicant’s arguments are deemed unpersuasive. The Office recommends filing an affidavit or declaration with objective evidence to support nonobviousness. Applicant also has the opportunity to prove unexpected results in view of any evidence provided in the disclosure; however, the evidence must be commensurate with the scope of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of Claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-2, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakayama (U.S. Pat. No. 20170040601 A1) in view of Min Oh et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180269475 A1) and Ito (J.P. Pat. No. 2013191579 A), as further evidenced by Kawasaki et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20150093631 A1) and Honma et al. (J.P. Pat. No. 2000260480 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Nakayama discloses a process for manufacturing a positive electrode active material for a lithium-ion secondary battery (para. 2, 5) including secondary particles formed by aggregation of a plurality of primary particles (para. 7 teaches “a large number” of primary particles in which is encompassed by “a plurality” or more than one). Nakayama discloses that the process comprising a mixing step (process) of mixing the positive electrode active material (para. 58) in which can be a lithium transition metal oxide having a layered crystal structure (para. 42), with a lithium compound (para. 58) such as lithium phosphate (para. 49). The mixing step can include a well-known mixing device such as a mill (para. 58). It is well known to one of ordinary skill in the art for mechanical mixing such as milling to cause transformation to an amorphous state as further evident by Kawasaki et al. in which teaches performing a mechanical milling process (applying mechanical stress) of an oxide for an electrode active material causing the oxide to become amorphous (para. 112).
The lithium transition metal oxide can exhibit a low crystalline NiO-like rock salt type crystal structure as further evident by Honma et al. in which teaches a layered rock salt structure lithium nickel composite oxide (para. 38). Further, Nakayama discloses a heat treatment process of subjecting the mixture having the amorphous NiO-like rock salt type crystal structure obtained in the milling process as further supported by Kawasaki et al. above, to a heat treatment to obtain the positive electrode active material (a lithium transition metal composite oxide having a layered rock salt type crystal structure as described above) in which lithium phosphate, a crystalline compound, is dispersed therein.
The lithium transition metal oxide can be represented by Li1.15Ni 0.33Co 0.33Mn0.33O2 meeting the limitations of the claimed formula (where s is 1.15, x is 0.33, y is 0.33, z is 0, and α is 0, within the claimed limits of said parameters) (para. 95). As the primary particles are agglomerated to form the secondary particles, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the lithium phosphate to be dispersed inside the secondary particle of the lithium- transition metal composite oxide in which can have the layered rock-salt type crystal structure.
Nakayama does not teach a distinct mixing process and milling process performed separately.
Min Oh et al. teaches a method for manufacturing an electrode active material in which the active material is mixed (in a mixing process) followed by mechanical milling (milling process) (para. 50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the manufacturing process of Nakayama et al. to include a distinct mixing process followed by a mechanical milling process as described by Min Oh et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform the described modification to ensure thorough mixing of the active material prior to controlling or adjusting the particle size of the active material by mechanical milling (para. 50).
Nakayama does not teach the crystallized lithium phosphate covering a surface of a primary particle of the lithium-transition metal composite oxide having the layered rock-salt type crystal structure.
Further, Nakayama cites prior art Ito (J.P. Pat No. 2013191579 A) in which teaches a lithium compound disposed on the outer circumferential surface (covering) of positive electrode active material particles providing benefits such as suppressing the generation of fracture between the primary particles of a positive electrode active material (para. 8 of Nakayama).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the manufacturing process of Nakayama to include the lithium phosphate on an outer surface (covering) of the particles of the positive electrode active material as described by Ito to provide benefits including suppressing the generation of fracture between the primary particles of a positive electrode active material as described above.
Regarding Claim 2, Nakayama et al. is modified by Min Oh et al. and Ito teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Nakayama discloses the lithium compound (lithium phosphate) mixed in an amount of 0.1 parts by mass to 4 parts by mass (0.1 to 4 wt.%) based on 100 parts by mass (100 total wt. %) of the positive electrode material (para. 50, 99), lying inside the claimed range of more than 0 and 10 wt.% or less. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See 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) (see MPEP § 2144.05, I). Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Regarding Claim 4, Nakayama et al. is modified by Min Oh et al. and Ito teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. As applied to Claim 1, the manufacturing process of Nakayama et al. is modified by Min Oh et al. to include a mechanical milling process as described above. Mechanical stress is the fundamental force applied during mechanical milling. Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakayama (U.S. Pat. No. 20170040601 A1) in view of Min Oh et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180269475 A1) and Ito (J.P. Pat. No. 2013191579 A), as further evidenced by Kawasaki et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20150093631 A1) and Honma et al. (J.P. Pat. No. 2000260480 A) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Han et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20160126542 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Nakayama et al. is modified by Min Oh et al. and Ito teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above.
Nakayama does not teach the heat treatment process performed at a temperature of 600 to 700 deg. C.
Han et al. teaches a heat treatment performed at temperature of 700 deg. C or less (para. 90). Han further teaches “when the temperature is within these ranges, the reactivity between the free lithium and the fluoride compound and/or the phosphate compound becomes maximized, and accordingly, the deintercalation of lithium of the lithium metal composite oxide may be prevented to achieve a certain level of a battery capacity” (para. 90).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the manufacturing method of Nakayama et al. to include a heat treatment performed at temperature of 700 deg. C or less as taught by Han et al., overlapping the claimed range of 600 to 700 deg. C (see MPEP § 2144.05, I), with a motivation to prevent deintercalation of lithium of the lithium metal composite oxide to achieve a certain level of a battery capacity as described above.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakayama (U.S. Pat. No. 20170040601 A1) in view of Ito (J.P. Pat. No. 2013191579 A), as further evidenced by Honma et al. (J.P. Pat. No. 2000260480 A), and further in view of Zheng et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20170338471 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Nakayama discloses a positive electrode active material for a lithium-ion secondary battery (para. 2, 5) including secondary particles formed by aggregation of a plurality (large number) of primary particles (para. 7). The lithium transition metal oxide can exhibit a layered rock salt type crystal structure as further evident by Honma et al. in which teaches a layered rock salt structure lithium nickel composite oxide; and benefits of said composite oxide used as the positive electrode active material including that it can be heat-treated at a relatively low temperature and can be manufactured at low cost (para. 38). The lithium transition metal oxide can be represented by Li1.15Ni0.33Co 0.33Mn0.33O2 where lithium phosphate is present in amount of 0.1 wt.% equivalent to 0.001 Li3PO4- (1-0.001)Li 1.15Ni 0.33Co 0.33Mn0.33O2 meeting the limitations of the claimed formula (where s is 1.15, x is 0.33, y is 0.33, z is 0, α is 0, and k is 0.001, within the claimed limits of said parameters) (para. 95-96). As the primary particles are agglomerated to form the secondary particles, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the lithium phosphate, a crystalline compound, to be also dispersed inside the secondary particle of the lithium transition metal composite oxide in which can have the layered rock-salt type crystal structure.
Nakayama does not teach the crystallized lithium phosphate covering a surface of a primary particle of the lithium-transition metal composite oxide having the layered rock-salt type crystal structure.
Further, Nakayama cites prior art Ito (J.P. Pat No. 2013191579 A) in which teaches a lithium compound disposed on the outer circumferential surface (covering) of positive electrode active material particles providing benefits such as suppressing the generation of fracture between the primary particles of a positive electrode active material (para. 8 of Nakayama).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the manufacturing process of Nakayama to include the lithium phosphate on an outer surface (covering) of the particles of the positive electrode active material as described by Ito to provide benefits including suppressing the generation of fracture between the primary particles of a positive electrode active material as described above.
Nakayama does not teach that the crystallized lithium phosphate is dispersed inside and on a surface of a secondary particle of the lithium-transition metal composite oxide having the layered rock-salt type crystal structure.
Zheng et al teaches a positive electrode material comprising lithium phosphate dispersed inside (infused or penetrated in spaces, [0054]) and coated on a surface of a secondary particle of a lithium transition metal composite oxide. The configuration improves the structural integrity and/or the interfacial stability by suppressing the particle crack formation; and prevents the formation of a SEI layer in which the SEI layer can lead to continuous cracking within the secondary particles ([0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the lithium phosphate particles of Nakayama to include the lithium phosphate dispersed inside and on a surface of a secondary particle of the lithium-transition metal composite oxide as taught by Zheng et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to improve the structural integrity and/or the interfacial stability by suppressing the particle crack formation; and prevent the formation of a SEI layer in which the SEI layer can lead to continuous cracking within the secondary particles as described above.
Regarding Claim 6, Nakayama is modified by Ito and Zheng et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 5 above. Nakayama teaches a lithium-ion secondary battery comprising at least a positive electrode containing the positive electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery (para. 106) according to Claim 5 as modified above. Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Regarding Claim 7, Nakayama is modified by Ito and Zheng et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 5 above. Nakayama is modified by Ito and Zheng et al. disclosing all of the claim limitations as set forth above, but the reference does not explicitly disclose the molar ratio of the lithium compound between 0.042 to 1 (0.042 < k < 0.1). Nakayama discloses that the amount of the lithium compound in the positive electrode active material is not particularly limited but is desirably 0.1 part by mass to 4 parts by mass per 100 parts by mass of the positive electrode active material particles ([0114]) (providing a molar ratio with an upper limit of 0.0323 (see pg. 10 of the applicant’s “Remarks” filed on 03/02/2026)). Nakayama recognizes that when the amount of the lithium compound in the positive electrode material is too small, the output increase effect of suppressing the occurrence of fracture may not be sufficiently demonstrated; while when the amount of the lithium is too large, the capacity of the lithium secondary battery may undesirable decrease ([0050]).
As suppressing the occurrence of fracture and battery capacity are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said amount of the lithium compound, the precise molar ratio would have been considered a known result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed amount of the lithium compound cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the amount of the lithium compound in the positive electrode active material of Nakayama to obtain the desired balance between suppressing the occurrence of fracture and battery capacity (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).
Nakayama discloses a general preference (the lithium compound present in an amount of 0.1 part by mass to 4 parts by mass) but does not does not criticize, discredit or otherwise discourage investigation into the invention claimed; for example, an alternative mass of 5.3 parts, slightly above the preferred range of Nakayama, would provide a molar ratio of approximately 0.0424 (0.0424 calculated by (5.3/116)/{(5.3/116)/(100/96.9)}, see pg. 10 of the “Remarks” filed 03/02/2026), in which can reasonably be discovered by routine optimization as described above.
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 CHRISTINA RENEE DAULTON whose telephone number is (703)756-5413. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 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.
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.
/C.R.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
