DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the March 2nd, 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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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 1-7 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.
The term “finely crystallized” in claims 1 and 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “finely crystallized” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The scope of the invention is uncertain as it is wholly unclear what particular particle sizes or diameters would constitute “finely” as claimed.
5. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-4 and 6-7 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendments received on March 2nd, 2026:
Claims 1-7 are pending in the current application. Claim 5 has been amended. Claim 7 is newly added.
Claim 5 is amended to specify that the lithium phosphate is dispersed inside and (instead of “or”) on a surface of a secondary particle of the lithium transitional metal composite oxide.
Claim 7 is newly added to further limit the molar ratio of lithium phosphate to 0.042 < k < 0.1, based on Example 2 of the specification where LiNiO2-5wt%Li3PO4 ([0099]); and a molar ratio of 0.0424 is calculated by (5/116) / {(5/116) + (95/96.9)}, atomic weight of Li3PO4 and LiNiO2 is 116 and 96.9 respectively).
No new matter has been amended. Applicant’s amendment is supported by the specification including the originally filed specification ([0099]) and method claims.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as described below:
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). The rejections are maintained.
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). The rejection is maintained.
Claims 5-6 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). The rejections are withdrawn in view of the amendment to Claim 5.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed March 2nd, 2026 have been fully considered as further described below:
Regarding Claim 1, applicant argues that the milling process is not taught by the prior art (see pg. 5-6 of the “Remarks”). Applicant argues that Min Oh teaches a raw material powder mixture, not a silicon oxide composite; and does not teach that the silicon oxide composite oxide is mixed before milling the cooled silicon composite oxide.
“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)” (emphasis in original) (see MPEP 2143.01).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant attacks secondary reference Min Oh for teachings that are not relied upon in the proposed combination (an active material comprising a lithium transition metal composite oxide having a crystal structure of a layered structure with lithium phosphate). The rejection is based on a combination of Nakayama and Min Oh. Nakayama is relied upon to teach a mixing process of mixing a lithium transition metal oxide having a layered crystal structure with lithium phosphate (para. 42, 58, 49); the mixing step can include a milling process of applying a mechanical stress to the lithium transition metal oxide (para. 58). Nakayama does not disclose that a distinct mixing process is followed by a separate milling process. Min Oh teaches a raw material powder comprising an active material in which is mixed followed by a milling process (para. 50). Therefore, Nakayama is modified to include a distinct mixing process followed by a mechanical milling process as taught by Min Oh, 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, the performed combination is deemed reasonable by a skilled artisan and would provide the claimed invention.
Further, applicant argues that a low crystalline Ni-O like rock salt crystal structure is not evidenced by Honma; and is based on an erroneous machine translation of Honma (see pg. 6-8 of the “Remarks”). Applicant’s arguments are found persuasive and Honma is not relied upon to teach the low crystalline structure; however, Honma remains a suitable evidentiary reference to teach a NiO like rock-salt type crystal structure as applied. As Claim 1 requires an amorphous or low crystalline structure and Kawasaki et al. is previously cited to show inherency of said amorphous structure, the low crystallinity is not required to be taught by the prior art; and all claim limitations remain met by the references as previously applied.
Regarding Claim 5 as amended, applicant argues that the lithium phosphate dispersed inside and on a surface of a secondary particle of the composite oxide is not taught by the prior art (see pg. 8 of the “Remarks”). Further, applicant suggests that Nakayama teaches away from disposing lithium phosphate on the outer surface of the active material particles as Nakayama discloses that disposing the lithium compound on an outer surface tends to decrease and the battery resistance increases (para. 9 of Nakayama).
"The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art, and all teachings in the prior art must be considered to the extent that they are in analogous arts. Where the teachings of two or more prior art references conflict, the examiner must weigh the power of each reference to suggest solutions to one of ordinary skill in the art, considering the degree to which one reference might accurately discredit another. In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 18 USPQ2d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 1991)" (see MPEP 2143.01.II).
The new grounds of rejection is based on Zheng et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20170338471 A1) in which is a newer reference comprising a more recent publication date (Nov. 2017) than Nakayama (Feb. 2017). Therefore, as the newer reference provides a benefit of dispersing the lithium compound both inside and on a surface of the secondary particle (improving the structural integrity and/or the interfacial stability by suppressing the particle crack formation; and preventing the formation of a SEI layer in which the SEI layer can lead to continuous cracking within the secondary particles ([0054])), a person having ordinary skill in the art would rely upon the more recent information taught by Zheng et al. despite the misgivings of the prior art. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are deemed unpersuasive.
Cited Prior Art
Previously Cited Nakayama (U.S. Pat. No. 20170040601 A1) (“Nakayama”)
Previously Cited Min Oh et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180269475 A1) (“Min Oh et al.”)
Previously Cited Ito (J.P. Pat. No. 2013191579 A) (“Ito”)
Previously Cited Kawasaki et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20150093631 A1) (“Kawasaki et al.”)
Previously Cited Honma et al. (J.P. Pat. No. 2000260480 A) (“Honma et al.”)
Previously Cited Han et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20160126542 A1) (“Han et al.”)
Zheng et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20170338471 A1) (“Zheng et al.”)
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.
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 is disposed therein. As the lithium phosphate undergoes a milling process as described below, it would be obvious for the lithium phosphate to exist in a finely crystallized stated.
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 finely 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). As the mixing step can include a well-known mixing device such as a mill (para. 58), it would be obvious for the lithium phosphate to exist in a finely crystallized stated based on grinding by the milling process. 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 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 finely 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 finely 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
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
Prosecution Insights