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 Status
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments filed September 10th, 2026 have been received and entered into the file. Currently 18-19, 24, 26-28 are amended, claims 1-15 are cancelled, and claim 29 is withdrawn, resulting in claims 16-28 pending for examination.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed September 10th, 2026 have been received.
Applicant’s amendment to claims 24 and 26 have overcome the claim objection set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed July 13th, 2026.
Applicant amendment to claims 18-19 has overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection with respect to the antecedent basis for said particles set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed July 13th, 2026.
Applicant amendment to claim 26 has overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed July 13th, 2026.
Applicant’s amendment to claims 27-28 has overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed July 13th, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 16-25, 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xin (Chinese Patent Publication No. 107210422 A) (machine translation of application relied upon in corresponding U.S. Patent Publication No. 20210399287 A1) in view of Li (Non-Patent Literature, “Comparison of Single Crystal and Polycrystalline LiNi0.5Mn0.3Co0.2O2 Positive Electrode Materials for High Voltage Li-Ion Cells”) and Wang (Non-Patent Literature, “Optimized Preparation of LiNi0.6Mn0.2Co0.2O2 with Single Crystal Morphology Cathode Material for Lithium-Ion Batteries”) as evidenced by Zeng (Non-Patent Literature, “Electrochemical Stabilities of Surface Aluminum-Doped LiNi0.5Co0.2Mn0.3O2 Single Crystals Under Different Cutoff Voltages”) and Zhao (Non-Patent Literature, “Facile Synthesis of Fluorine Doped Single Crystal Ni-Rick Cathode Material for Lithium-Ion Batteries”).
Regarding claim 16, Xin teaches a positive electrode active oxide material for rechargeable batteries (Abstract) comprising lithium, oxygen, nickel, and at least one metal selected from the group comprising manganese and cobalt, and further comprises aluminum and fluorine (Paragraph 0011).
It is reasonable to presume that the positive electrode active oxide material of Xin:
has an atomic ratio of Al to a total amount of Ni, Mn, and/or Co of 1.0 to 7.0, as determined by XPS analysis
has an atomic ratio of F to the total amount of Ni, Mn, and/or Co of 0.5 to 6.0, as determined by XPS analysis.
Support for said presumption is found in that Xin teaches a method of making the positive electrode active oxide material which overlaps the method described in the instant disclosure, particularly relating to the components, their proportions, and their use in the method steps.
In step 1 of the process disclosed by Example 1 of the instant disclosure, 1 kg of CEX1 powder is mixed with 2 grams of alumina nano-powder for 30 minutes at 1000 rpm (Page 16, Lines 25-26). The instant disclosure provides the CEX1 powder having a general formula Li1.01(Ni0.63Mn0.22Co0.15)0.99O2 (Page 15, Lines 15-16).
Xin teaches in the general method of making the lithium metal oxide, a step of providing a first mixture comprising a source of aluminum and a lithium M’-oxide powder, with M’=Niz(Ni1/2Mn1/2)yCox, where 0.15≤x≤0.30, 0.10≤z≤0.55 and x+y+z=1 (Paragraphs 0022-0023). Xin further teaches that the source of alumina is nanometric alumina powder (Paragraph 0029).
Xin teaches an embodiment in example 1 of the disclosure, comprising a step (d) in which 1 kg of a lithium-nickel-manganese-cobalt oxide powder (represented by Li1.01(Ni0.4(Ni1/2Mn1/2)0.4Co0.2)0.99O2) is mixed with 2 g of alumina nanopowder, typically at 1000 rpm for 30 minutes (Paragraph 0077).
Thus, Xin teaches a step (d) which corresponds to step (1) of the instant disclosure, where 1 kg of a lithium metal oxide is mixed with 2 grams of alumina nano-powder for 30 minutes at 1000 rpm.
As described above, the instant disclosure provides that the lithium metal oxide powder in step 1 is Li1.01(Ni0.63Mn0.22Co0.15)0.99O2.
In the embodiment of Example 1 of Xin, step (d) teaches the lithium metal oxide powder is Li1.01(Ni0.4(Ni1/2Mn1/2)0.4Co0.2)0.99O2, which simplifies to Li1.01(Ni0.6Mn0.2Co0.2)0.99O2. The compound explicitly taught in step d Example 1 of Xin has stoichiometric proportions of the elements Li, Ni, Mn, Co, and O which are very similar to the compound taught by the instant disclosure recited above.
However, additionally, Xin teaches generally, the lithium M’-oxide powder is represented by M’=Niz(Ni1/2Mn1/2)yCox, where 0.15≤x≤0.30, 0.10≤z≤0.55 and x+y+z=1. Thus, Xin teaches it is possible to adjust the ratios of nickel, manganese, and cobalt in the precursor lithium metal oxide powder and therefore the ordinary artisan would find it obvious to tune the subscripts of Ni, Mn, and Co in Li1.01(Ni0.63Mn0.22Co0.15)0.99O2 to arrive at the starting material of the instant disclosure, since the combination of components would have yielded predictable results as a lithium metal oxide precursor material, absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E). When the subscripts of Ni, Mn, and Co are tuned according to the teachings of Xin and set to x=0.15 (which lies within the range of x disclosed by Xin), z=0.41 (which lies within the range of z disclosed by Xin), and y=0.44 (y=1-x-z as disclosed by Xin), the lithium metal oxide powder used in step (d) of Xin may be Li1.01(Ni0.63Mn0.22Co0.15)0.99O2, which is the same material used in the instant disclosure.
In step 2 of the process disclosed by Example 1 of the instant disclosure, the mixture obtained from Step 1 is fired in a furnace under the flow of an oxidizing atmosphere at 750ºC for 10 hours (Page 16, Lines 27-28).
Xin teaches in the general method of making the lithium metal oxide, the mixture obtained from step 1 is sintered at a first sintering temperature for a first period of time (Paragraphs 0025, 0052), where the first sintering temperature between 500ºC to 800ºC and the first sintering time is between 3 to 15 hours (Paragraph 0052). Xin teaches the sintering temperature is important to obtain the doping of the lithium metal oxide core by the element A (aluminum) (Paragraph 0052). Further Xin teaches an embodiment in example 2 of the disclosure, comprising a step (d) in which the mixture from step 1 is sintered in a box furnace in an oxidizing atmosphere for 10 hours. This embodiment supports the 10 hours as a suitable time for sintering.
The range of sintering temperature and the range of sintering time of the mixture obtained from step 1 taught by Xin overlaps the sintering conditions set forth in Example 1 of the instant disclosure. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Xin, in order to obtain sufficient doping of the lithium metal oxide core by aluminum, as recognized by Xin.
Thus, Xin teaches a step which corresponds to step (2) of the instant disclosure, the mixture obtained from Step 1 is fired in a furnace under the flow of an oxidizing atmosphere at 750ºC for 10 hours
In step 3 of the process disclosed by Example 1 of the instant disclosure, 1 kg of the powder obtained from step 2 is mixed with 2 grams of alumina nano-powder and 3 grams of polyvinylidene fluoride powder for 30 minutes at 1000 rpm (Page 16, Lines 29-30).
Xin teaches an embodiment in example 1 of the disclosure, comprising a step (e) in which 1 kg of the powder obtained from step (d) (step 2) is mixed with 2 g of alumina nanopowder and 3 g of polyvinylidene fluoride, usually for 30 minutes at 1000 rpm (Paragraph 0078).
Thus, Xin teaches a step (e) which corresponds to step (3) of the instant disclosure, where 1 kg of the powder from step (2) is mixed with 2 grams of alumina nano-powder and 3 g of polyvinylidene fluoride for 30 minutes at 1000 rpm.
In step 4 of the process disclosed by Example 1 of the instant disclosure, the mixture obtained from step 3 is fired in a furnace under the flow of an oxidizing atmosphere at 375ºC for 5 hours (Page 16, Lines 25-26).
Xin teaches an embodiment in example 1 of the disclosure, comprising a step (e) in which the mixture obtained from step 3 is fired (sintered) in a box furnace in an oxidizing atmosphere. Xin teaches the sintering temperature for this step is 375ºC and the dwell time is 5 hours (Paragraph 0078).
Thus, Xin teaches a step which corresponds to step (4) of the instant disclosure, where the mixture obtained from step 3 is fired in a furnace under the flow of an oxidizing atmosphere at 375ºC for 5 hours.
As detailed above, the method of producing the positive electrode active oxide material disclosed by Xin aligns with the method steps to produce a positive electrode active oxide material described in the instant disclosure, particularly relating to the precursor materials and their quantities in each step as well as the process conditions. Therefore, a positive electrode active oxide material whose atomic ratios of aluminum and fluorine meet the instant claimed limitations would result from the method taught by Xin, or it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan to tune the conditions of the process described above (amount of Ni, Mn, and Co in the precursor lithium metal oxide, sintering time/temperature) to obtain a positive electrode active oxide material possessing the properties of the instant claim.
As described above, Xin describes the method of the coating process of a core lithium-nickel-manganese-cobalt oxide powder material, but is silent as to the crystallinity of the positive electrode active oxide material.
However, Wang discloses that polycrystalline lithium-nickel-manganese-cobalt oxide positive electrode materials affects the electrochemical performance of the cathode and leads to low volume energy density of the battery. Wang teaches that lithium-nickel-manganese-cobalt oxide positive electrode material with a single crystal morphology have excellent electrochemical properties that mitigate the aforementioned properties of polycrystalline materials. Wang teaches the advantages of single crystal morphology of such materials including a short path for lithium ions, enhanced electrolyte and conductive agent contact, and an orderly lattice arrangement. Further, Wang teaches that the crystal morphology of lithium-nickel-manganese-cobalt oxide positive electrode active materials may be tuned by controlling the calcination, ball milling and reheating processes (Pages 2689-2690). In the process of manufacturing the single crystal particles of Wang, ball milling and reheating processes are combined to produce the smooth primary single crystal particles with perfect cycling performance and rate capability (Page 2697).
Additionally, Li further supports controlling the synthesis method of lithium, nickel, manganese, and cobalt-containing oxide materials for positive electrodes in order to obtain a single crystal structure. Li discloses that single-crystal materials are obtained by tuning the sintering temperature and the lithium to transition metal ratio (Page A1539).
Further, Zeng provides evidence that single crystal lithium metal oxides implemented as the core of positive electrode materials coated with aluminum are known in the art, like those disclosed by Xin and the instant disclosure. Zeng discloses LiNi0.5Co0.2Mn0.3O2 single crystals with an aluminum surface coating used as a positive electrode active material (Abstract, Figure 1). Zeng teaches the advantage of the single crystal structure to secure high tap density of cathode materials while the surface aluminum doping secures side reactions (Page 99).
Further, Zhao provides evidence that single crystal lithium metal oxides which also comprise fluorine are known in the art, like those disclosed by Xin and the instant disclosure. Zhao discloses nickel-rich single crystals doped with fluorine (Abstract). Zhao teaches that the preparation of such particles with single crystal morphology can effectively promote the rapid de-intercalation of lithium ions in the material and suppress gas emission, thereby improving electrochemical properties of cathode materials (Page 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positive electrode active oxide material of Xin to incorporate the teachings of Li and Wang in which the material has a single crystal morphology. Such single-crystalline positive electrode active oxide materials are known in the art as evidenced by Zeng and Zhao and are capable of being obtained by tuning process steps such as calcination, ball milling and reheating as well as process parameters including sintering temperature and lithium to transition metal ratio, as taught by Li and Wang. This modification to ensure single-crystal morphology of the positive electrode active oxide material of Xin would advantageously ensure improved electrochemical properties and performance of the electrode and the battery, as recognized by Li, Wang, Zeng, and Zhao.
Regarding claim 17, Xin teaches the single-crystalline positive electrode active oxide material according to claim 16.
As described above in the rejection of claim 16, the modification of Xin by Li and Wang, as evidenced by Zeng and Zhao, taught that the positive electrode active oxide material has a single crystal structure.
As described above in the rejection of claim 16, the method of producing the positive electrode active oxide material disclosed by Xin aligns with the method steps to produce a positive electrode active oxide material described in the instant disclosure, particularly relating to the precursor materials and their quantities in each step as well as the process conditions.
Therefore, it is reasonable to presume that the positive electrode active oxide material produced by the method taught by Xin meets the instant claimed limitations, or it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan to tune the conditions of the process described above (amount of Ni, Mn, and Co in the precursor lithium metal oxide, sintering time/temperature) to obtain a positive electrode active oxide material wherein:
the atomic ratio of Al to the total amount of Ni, Mn, and/or Co is 1.2 to 4.5, as determined by XPS analysis
the atomic ratio of F to the total amount of Ni, Mn, and/or Co is 0.6 to 3.0, as determined by XPS analysis.
Regarding claim 18, Xin teaches the single-crystalline positive electrode active oxide material according to claim 16.
As described above in the rejection of claim 16, the modification of Xin by Li and Wang, as evidenced by Zeng and Zhao, taught that the positive electrode active oxide material has a single crystalline structure.
As described above in the rejection of claim 16, the method of producing the positive electrode active oxide material disclosed by Xin aligns with the method steps to produce a positive electrode active oxide material described in the instant disclosure, particularly relating to the precursor materials and their quantities in each step as well as the process conditions.
Therefore, it is reasonable to presume that the positive electrode active oxide material produced by the method taught by Xin meets the instant claimed limitations, or it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan to tune the conditions of the process described above (amount of Ni, Mn, and Co in the precursor lithium metal oxide, sintering time/temperature) to obtain a positive electrode active oxide material wherein:
wherein said positive electrode active material has an atomic ratio of Al to the total amount of Ni, Mn, and/or Co is 1.7 to 3.5, as determined by XPS analysis.
Regarding claim 19, Xin teaches the single-crystalline positive electrode active oxide material according to claim 16.
As described above in the rejection of claim 16, the modification of Xin by Li and Wang, as evidenced by Zeng and Zhao, taught that the positive electrode active oxide material has a single crystalline structure.
As described above in the rejection of claim 16, the method of producing the positive electrode active oxide material disclosed by Xin aligns with the method steps to produce a positive electrode active oxide material described in the instant disclosure, particularly relating to the precursor materials and their quantities in each step as well as the process conditions.
Therefore, it is reasonable to presume that the positive electrode active oxide material produced by the method taught by Xin meets the instant claimed limitations, or it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan to tune the conditions of the process described above (amount of Ni, Mn, and Co in the precursor lithium metal oxide, sintering time/temperature) to obtain a positive electrode active oxide material wherein:
an atomic ratio of F to the total amount of Ni, Mn, and/or Co is 1.5 to 2.5, as determined by XPS analysis.
Regarding claim 20, Xin teaches the single-crystalline positive electrode active oxide material according to claim 16.
As described above in the rejection of claim 16, the modification of Xin by Li and Wang, as evidenced by Zeng and Zhao, taught that the positive electrode active oxide material has a single crystal structure.
Xin teaches the single-crystalline positive electrode active oxide material comprising particles (Paragraph 0044).
As described above in the rejection of claim 16, the method of producing the positive electrode active oxide material disclosed by Xin aligns with the method steps to produce a positive electrode active oxide material described in the instant disclosure, particularly relating to the precursor materials and their quantities in each step as well as the process conditions.
Therefore, it is reasonable to presume that the positive electrode active oxide material produced by the method taught by Xin meets the instant claimed limitations, or it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan to tune the conditions of the process described above (amount of Ni, Mn, and Co in the precursor lithium metal oxide, sintering time/temperature) to obtain a positive electrode active oxide material comprising particles wherein:
said particles have an atomic content of nickel, relative to a total atomic content of Ni, Mn, Co in said particles, of 50 to 95 %, as determined by ICP.
Regarding claim 21, Xin teaches the single-crystalline positive electrode active oxide material according to claim 16.
As described above in the rejection of claim 16, the modification of Xin by Li and Wang, as evidenced by Zeng and Zhao, taught that the positive electrode active oxide material has a single crystal structure.
Xin teaches the single-crystalline positive electrode active oxide material comprising particles (Paragraph 0044).
As described above in the rejection of claim 16, the method of producing the positive electrode active oxide material disclosed by Xin aligns with the method steps to produce a positive electrode active oxide material described in the instant disclosure, particularly relating to the precursor materials and their quantities in each step as well as the process conditions.
Therefore, it is reasonable to presume that the positive electrode active oxide material produced by the method taught by Xin meets the instant claimed limitations, or it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan to tune the conditions of the process described above (amount of Ni, Mn, and Co in the precursor lithium metal oxide, sintering time/temperature) to obtain a positive electrode active oxide material wherein:
said particles have an atomic content of Al, relative to a total atomic content of Ni, Mn, and/or Co in said particles, of 0.05 to 3.00 %, as determined by ICP.
Regarding claim 22, Xin teaches the single-crystalline positive electrode active oxide material according to claim 16.
As described above in the rejection of claim 16, the modification of Xin by Li and Wang, as evidenced by Zeng and Zhao, taught that the positive electrode active oxide material has a single crystal structure.
Xin teaches the single-crystalline positive electrode active oxide material comprising particles (Paragraph 0044).
As described above in the rejection of claim 16, the method of producing the positive electrode active oxide material disclosed by Xin aligns with the method steps to produce a positive electrode active oxide material described in the instant disclosure, particularly relating to the precursor materials and their quantities in each step as well as the process conditions.
Therefore, it is reasonable to presume that the positive electrode active oxide material produced by the method taught by Xin meets the instant claimed limitations, or it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan to tune the conditions of the process described above (amount of Ni, Mn, and Co in the precursor lithium metal oxide, sintering time/temperature) to obtain a positive electrode active oxide material wherein:
said particles have an atomic content of Co, relative to a total atomic content of Ni, Mn, and/or Co in said particles, of 5.00 to 25.00 %, as determined by ICP.
Regarding claim 23, Xin teaches the single-crystalline positive electrode active oxide material according to claim 16.
As described above in the rejection of claim 16, the modification of Xin by Li and Wang, as evidenced by Zeng and Zhao, taught that the positive electrode active oxide material has a single crystal structure.
Xin teaches the single-crystalline positive electrode active oxide material comprising particles (Paragraph 0044).
As described above in the rejection of claim 16, the method of producing the positive electrode active oxide material disclosed by Xin aligns with the method steps to produce a positive electrode active oxide material described in the instant disclosure, particularly relating to the precursor materials and their quantities in each step as well as the process conditions.
Therefore, it is reasonable to presume that the positive electrode active oxide material produced by the method taught by Xin meets the instant claimed limitations, or it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan to tune the conditions of the process described above (amount of Ni, Mn, and Co in the precursor lithium metal oxide, sintering time/temperature) to obtain a positive electrode active oxide material wherein:
said particles have an atomic content of Mn, relative to a total atomic content of Ni, Mn, and/or Co in said particles, of 0.00 to 70.00 %, as determined by ICP.
Regarding claim 24, Xin teaches the single-crystalline positive electrode active oxide material according to claim 16.
Xin teaches the single-crystalline positive electrode active oxide material comprising particles (Paragraph 0044).
As described above in the rejection of claim 16, the modification of Xin by Li and Wang, as evidenced by Zeng and Zhao, taught that the positive electrode active oxide material has a single crystal structure. Further, Li and Wang disclose tuning process steps such as calcination, ball milling and reheating as well as process parameters including sintering temperature and lithium to transition metal ratio in order to control the resulting crystal morphology of the particles and therefore also particle size. For example, Li teaches that grain size of the particles which vary with the lithium to transition metal ratio (Li/TM), with large grains between 2-6 µm at Li/TM=1.2 which increases to 4-8 µm at Li/TM=1.25. Thus, Li exemplifies how it is possible to adjust process conditions including Li/TM ratio in order to obtain particle sizes that lie within the instant claimed range.
As described above in the rejection of claim 16, the method of producing the positive electrode active oxide material disclosed by Xin aligns with the method steps to produce a positive electrode active oxide material described in the instant disclosure, particularly relating to the precursor materials and their quantities in each step as well as the process conditions.
Therefore, it is reasonable to presume that the positive electrode active oxide material produced by the method taught by Xin in view of Li and Wang meets the instant claimed limitations, or it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan to tune the conditions of the process of Xin (amount of Ni, Mn, and Co in the precursor lithium metal oxide, sintering time/temperature) and modified Xin (calcination, ball milling, reheating, sintering temperature, and lithium to transition metal ratio) described above to obtain a positive electrode active oxide material wherein:
said particles have a median particle size d50 of 2 µm to 9 µm, as determined by laser diffraction.
Regarding claim 25, Xin teaches the single-crystalline positive electrode active oxide material according to claim 16.
As described above in the rejection of claim 16, the modification of Xin by Li and Wang, as evidenced by Zeng and Zhao, taught that the positive electrode active oxide material has a single crystal structure.
As described above in the rejection of claim 16, the method of producing the positive electrode active oxide material disclosed by Xin aligns with the method steps to produce a positive electrode active oxide material described in the instant disclosure, particularly relating to the precursor materials and their quantities in each step as well as the process conditions.
Therefore, it is reasonable to presume that the positive electrode active oxide material produced by the method taught by Xin meets the instant claimed limitations, or it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan to tune the conditions of the process described above (amount of Ni, Mn, and Co in the precursor lithium metal oxide, sintering time/temperature) to obtain a positive electrode active oxide material wherein:
a leaked capacity Qtotal of at most 35 mAh/g, whereby said leaked capacity Qtotal is determined by a coin cell testing procedure at 80°C using a 1C current definition of 160 mA/g in the 4.4-3.0 V/Li metal window range.
Regarding claim 28, Xin teaches an electrochemical cell comprising a positive electrode active material according to claim 16 (Paragraph 0029).
Claims 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xin in view of Li and Wang, as evidenced by Zeng and Zhao, as applied to claims 16-25, 28 above, and further in view of Monma (Japanese Patent Publication No. 2018088400 A).
Regarding claim 26, Xin teaches the positive electrode for lithium-ion secondary batteries comprising positive electrode active oxide material wherein said positive electrode active oxide material is according to claim 16 (Paragraphs 0002, 0011).
As described above in the rejection of claim 16, the modification of Xin by Li and Wang, as evidenced by Zeng and Zhao, taught that the positive electrode active oxide material has a single crystalline structure.
Xin is silent as to the positive electrode comprising a polymer solid electrolyte.
However, Monma teaches a positive electrode active material including lithium, aluminum, a transition metal, magnesium, oxygen, and fluorine, and the surface layer portion of the positive electrode active material whose content is measured by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (Paragraph 19). Monma teaches an embodiment of a secondary battery including a positive electrode, negative electrode, and an electrolyte (Paragraph 20), where the positive electrode is impregnated with electrolyte (Paragraph 162). Thus, the positive electrode of Monma is considered to comprise (be impregnated with) an electrolyte in accordance with the instant claim.
Monma teaches that instead of an electrolytic solution, a solid electrolyte having a polymer material can be used, which results in a battery in which the separator is not required and there is no leakage risk, improve safety (Paragraph 151).
Therefore, Monma teaches it is known in the art to include an electrolyte in the positive electrode and further advantageous to have the electrolyte be a polymer solid electrolyte. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positive electrode of Xin to incorporate the teachings of Monma in which a polymer solid electrolyte is included in the positive electrode in addition to the positive electrode active oxide material disclosed above. Doing so would advantageously eliminate the need for a separator in the battery and improve safety by mitigating the risk of leaking.
Regarding claim 27, Xin teaches the positive electrode active material according to claim 16.
As described in the above rejection of claim 16, Xin in view of Monma teaches the single-crystalline positive electrode active material according to claim 16 used in a battery comprising a solid polymer electrolyte in order to improve safety and reduce leaks. Thus, modified Xin teaches a polymer battery comprising the positive electrode active material according to claim 16, meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Response to Arguments
In the remarks filed September 10th, 2026, applicant argues that the proposed modification to modify Xin is not supported by the prior art. Applicant argues that the benefits taught by Wang and Li overlap substantially with the benefits that Xin’s surface treatment already provides. Applicant argues that the surface treatment of Xin already addresses the high-voltage cycle stability and elevated temperature performance concerns that motivate the use of single crystals in Li and Wang. Applicant argues that a person of ordinary skill starting from Xin’s surface-treated material would have limited motivation to introduce a further modification such as switching to a single-crystal morphology to address performance concerns Xin’s surface treatment has already resolved. Further, applicant argues that because Li reports single crystal NMC532 has lower specific capacity than polycrystalline materials, the claimed combination is not a predictable next step from the prior art but an unprompted departure from a solution that Xin already demonstrates works.
These arguments have been fully considered but are not found persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner presents that obviousness may 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 found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
As described above and in the Non-Final Rejection mailed July 13th, 2026, the prior art of Wang teaches that single crystal morphology of lithium-nickel-manganese-cobalt oxide positive electrode material with a single crystal morphology has excellent electrochemical properties (short path for lithium ions, enhanced electrolyte and conductive agent contact, and orderly lattice arrangement) and does not exhibit the low energy density often associated with polycrystalline materials. The prior art of Zeng teaches the advantage of the single crystal structure to secure high tap density of cathode materials.
Therefore, the Examiner presents that the prior art clearly teaches the motivation of having the positive electrode active oxide material of Xin be single crystalline. The Examiner presents that while applicant argues that the motivation for the aforementioned modification addresses similar performance corners as the surface treatment of Xin, the ordinary artisan would remain motivated to make such a modification to see if performance could be further enhanced to obtain the above described electrochemical benefits of the prior art. There is nothing in Xin or the additional prior art of record that would lead the ordinary artisan away from making the positive electrode active oxide material have a single crystal morphology simply because the material has a coating that provides additional benefits, as argued by applicant. While Xin teaches a solution that works as described by applicant, there is nothing precluding the ordinary artisan from further seeking to optimize the performance of the positive electrode active oxide, including via the crystallinity, as described in the rejection of record.
In fact, the Examiner presents that the prior art of Zeng was provided to teach that single crystalline core lithium metal oxides of positive electrode materials are known in the art, and that such a morphology is implemented in conjunction with aluminum present at the surface (overlapping with the structure and composition of the instant application). Zeng was further cited to provide the distinct benefits of the single crystal morphology and the surface aluminum doping, being a high tap density and securing side reactions, which provided additional motivation to use these features of the positive electrode active oxide material in conjunction.
Further, the Examiner presents that with respect to applicant’s arguments that Li reports single crystal NMC532 has lower specific capacity than polycrystalline materials, “[A] reference disclosure must be evaluated for all that it fairly [teaches] and not only for what is indicated as preferred.” In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390 (CCPA 1969). Therefore, the Examiner presents that the ordinary artisan would consider the teachings of Li in their entirety, including those which describe the advantage of single crystal material NMC being a longer lifetime, including better capacity retention than cells with polycrystalline materials (Abstract). Further, applicant appears to be referring to the lower specific capacity of the single crystal materials however Li explicitly discloses that this may not be an issue for Li-ion cells designed for long lifetime applications (Abstract).
In the remarks filed September 10th, 2026, applicant argues that the proposed modification lacks a reasonable expectation of success. Applicant argues that a person of ordinary skill who contemplated applying Xia’s surface treatment to single-crystalline particles rather than polycrystalline secondary particles would face challenges owing to a fundamental mismatch in particle size and different surface chemistry that would alter the treatment mechanism.
These arguments have been fully considered but are not found persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner presents that in the rejection of claim 1 presented above and in the Non-Final Rejection mailed July 13th, 2026, the modification of Xin to incorporate the teachings of Li and Wang as evidenced by Zeng and Zhao established the benefits of a single crystalline positive electrode active oxide material and modified the positive electrode active oxide material of Xin to have a single crystal morphology. The Examiner presents that the obviousness rejection did not bodily incorporate the size of the single crystal particles disclosed by the secondary references into the primary reference of Xin. As such, the rejection of record did not explicitly modify the size of the positive electrode active oxide material of Xin. The Examiner presents that there is no evidence of record nor any explicit teachings in the prior art which establish the modified single crystalline particles of Xin in view of Li and Wang as evidenced by Zeng and Zhao could not be the size of the particles disclosed in Xin nor that the process of forming the particles of Xin as described above could not result in particles having a size on the scale of the secondary references as argued by applicant.
Additionally, the Examiner presents that applicant presents an overly narrow representation of the teachings of Xin with respect to particle size. In arguing that the Xin’s core particles have a D50 of 11-12 µm and that the thickness window of the surface layer of Xin was established on and calibrated for 11-12 µm polycrystalline particles, the Examiner submits that no where in the disclosure of Xin are the particles established as explicitly polycrystalline. Additionally, the size of D50 of 11-12 µm is merely listed as an example in the disclosure of Xin, corresponding to Example 1. The invention of the prior art is not limited to or defined by only those embodiments disclosed in the Examples. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 424 (CCPA 1971). A reference is not limited to working examples (see In re Fracalossi, 215 USPQ 569 (CCPA 1982)).
Therefore, the Examiner presents that the positive electrode active oxide material of Xin is not limited to the 11-12 µm median particle size range. As such, applicant’s arguments directed toward the apparent mismatch in size between the particles of Xin and the prior art, notably Li and Wang, resulting in lack of a reasonable expectation of success are not founded as there is nothing in the disclosure of Xin requiring a specific particle size. Therefore, applicant’s arguments directed toward the effects on surface area resulting from reducing the particle size are considered moot, as no such modification to the particle size was either performed nor required by Xin as described above.
Further, the Examiner additionally notes that as written, the instant claim 16 directed toward the single-crystalline positive electrode active oxide material does not require a particle size.
With respect to applicant’s arguments regarding the surface chemistry, the Examiner presents that there is no evidence presented by applicant nor in Xin which would indicate that the surface treatment of Xin applied to single-crystalline particles of Xin in view of Li and Wang as evidenced by Zeng and Zhao would no longer meet the instant claimed limitations. Applicant argues that a person of ordinary skill would not be able to predict how the reaction-dependent processes would behave on a different substrate, however as set forth in the rejection of claim 16 above and in the Non-Final Rejection mailed July 13th, 2026, the Examiner established the overlap between the steps of the method of Xin and the instant disclosure involving the alumina nanopowder. Therefore, the method steps described and compared by the Examiner between Xin and the instant disclosure remain analogous, leading the ordinary artisan to conclude the properties of the instant product would be shared by that of Xin. The modification of the positive electrode active oxide material of Xin to be single crystalline only further aligns the materials of the method of modified Xin in supporting such a conclusion.
In the remarks filed September 10th, 2026, applicant argues that the evidentiary references do not support the Examiner’s conclusions. Applicant argues that Zeng uses a different aluminum form in a different location and does not include fluorine or a discrete surface layer.
These arguments have been fully considered but are not found persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner presents that applicant appears to be arguing the general differences in the formation processes of the positive electrode material between Zeng and Xin. However, the Examiner presents that Zeng was used as an evidentiary references to support a single crystalline structure in combination with a surface presence of aluminum. Applicant’s arguments that Zeng’s aluminum is incorporated as a lattice dopant is not founded, as Zeng clearly discloses and illustrates aluminum surface doped single crystal 523 cathode (Page 95, Column 1, Paragraphs 1-2; Figure 1), and therefore at least some aluminum is located on the surface of the single crystal of the lithium transition metal oxide, which was cited by the Examiner to support the modification of the positive electrode active oxide of Xin having both a single crystal structure and aluminum present on its surface.
It is also worth noting that applicant describes Xin’s surface layer comprising a discrete intimate mixture of LiF and Al2O3 however nowhere in the disclosure of Xin is the layer described as discrete. In fact, Xin includes in the disclosure that aluminum is included in the core, which lends itself the overlapping teachings of aluminum as a dopant as described by applicant in their arguments regarding the teachings of Zeng above.
With respect to applicant’s arguments that Zeng acknowledges that applying surface aluminum treatments to single crystal particles is a recognized challenge, the Examiner presents this cited portion in applicant’s arguments is included in the introduction portion of Zeng as a challenge in the art, which the disclosure of Zeng goes on to provide a solution for, as proceeding this paragraph Zeng explicitly describes how in the disclosed work, a single crystal 523 material was prepared with further aluminum coating to performed a surface AL-doped 523 cathode (Page 95, Column 1, Paragraph 2). Therefore, while Zeng may describe that applying surface aluminum treatments to single crystal particles is a recognized challenge, the disclosure of Zeng clearly provides evidence that such a feat is not impossible.
With respect to applicant’s arguments that Zeng does not teach fluorine in any form in the active material, the Examiner presents that the presence of fluorine in the active material is inherent to Xin as a result of the overlapping process conditions and materials of Xin and the instant application, and thus Zeng was not relied upon to teach this feature. The prior art was not modified by Zeng, as this reference was exclusively used for evidence that single crystal lithium metal oxides implemented as the core of positive electrode materials coated with aluminum are known in the art.
In the remarks filed September 10th, 2026, applicant argues that Zhao used bulk lattice fluorine substitution, not surface LiF which is fundamentally different from the fluorine in both Xia and the present application. Applicant further argues that Zhao does not teach aluminum or a discrete Al2O3 + LiF surface layer.
These arguments have been fully considered but are not found persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner presents that in the Non-Final Rejection mailed July 13th, 2026 and presented above, Zhao was relied upon as an evidentiary reference to show that single crystal morphology of electrode active material has the benefits of promoting the rapid de-intercalation of lithium ions in the material and suppress gas emission, thereby improving electrochemical properties of cathode materials. Further, the Examiner pointed out that Zhao included fluorine in the positive electrode oxide material, but as the prior art was not modified by Zhao, this reference was exclusively used for evidence that single crystal lithium metal oxides which also comprise fluorine are known in the art) and further Zhao was not relied upon to teach this feature.
In the remarks filed September 10th, 2026, applicant argues that no reference, individually or in combination, teaches or suggests a single-crystalline NMC particle bearing a discrete surface layer comprising an intimate mixture of LiF and Al2O3, as required by the claims.
These arguments have been fully considered but are not found persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner presents that a proper obviousness rejection was set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed July 13th, 2026 as the prior art renders obviousness and teaches each required component of the instant claims. Each specific component of claim is discussed and addressed in the rejection. Further, the Examiner points out that the requirement of the instant claims as described in applicant’s arguments is narrower in scope from the instant claims as written, which for example, does specify the composition of the discrete surface layer being an intimate mixture of LiF and Al2O3.
In the remarks filed September 10th, 2026, applicant argues that as explained above, the underlying combination of Xin, Li, Wang, Seng, and Zhao do not establish a prima facie case of obviousness for the positive electrode active material of claim 16 and because claims 26 and 27 depend from claim 16, the combination does not teach the limitations of the dependent claims.
These arguments have been fully considered but are not found persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner presents that applicant’s arguments are not convincing for at least the reasons presented above for claim 16.
In the remarks filed September 10th, 2026, applicant argues the Examiner provides three motivations for combining Xin with Monma, including eliminating the separator, avoiding leakage risk, and improving safety. Applicant argues that none of these motivations is grounded in any problem Xin identifies, as Xin does not identify the separator or leaking as a problem of the disclosure, and thus there is no reason a skilled artisan would abandon Xia’s liquid electrolyte architecture for the safety benefits described by Monma when Xia already addresses the safety-related concerns through the surface modification of the particles.
These arguments have been fully considered but are not found persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner presents that obviousness may 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 found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Further, as per the MPEP described above, obviousness is not dependent on a deficiency of the primary reference which is modified, only a teaching of a secondary reference which motivates the combination.
Further, as described in the Non-Final Rejection mailed July 13th, 2026 and in the rejection above, Monma teaches the positive electrode active material (sharing materials in the composition with the instant disclosure) is impregnated with electrolyte, and that the electrolyte can be a solution or a solid electrolyte, a solid polymer electrolyte having the advantages of not requiring a separator, minimized leakage risk, and improved safety. Thus, Monma clearly outlines the benefits the ordinary artisan could obtain by implementing a solid polymer electrolyte into a battery system where the positive electrode active material comprising Li, Al, Mg, O, F, and a transition metal and further teaches it is preferred over a liquid electrolyte composition. Monma provides explicit teachings that either a liquid or solid electrolyte system could be used but also explicit teachings as to why one would seek to use a solid electrolyte system. Thus, the Examiner maintains that when considering the prior art references in their entirety for all that is disclosed, the ordinary artisan would be motivated to use a solid electrolyte system in the battery system of Xin, as is described as feasible and advantageous by Monma.
In the remarks filed September 10th, 2026, applicant argues that the modification of Xia’s liquid electrolyte system with a polymer electrolyte is a not a component-level swap and would instead change the battery architecture, electrode formulation, cell assembly process, operating temperature, and cathode-electrolyte interface chemistry, and thus the proposed modification lacks a reasonable expectation of success. Applicant argues that Xin’s surface layer is specifically engineered to function at the interface with a liquid organic carbonate electrolyte. Applicant argues that neither the Examiner nor Monma provides any evidence that Xin’s surface layer would predictably maintain its intended protective function in a materially different environment.
These arguments have been fully considered but are not found persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner presents that the arguments directed toward a reasonable expectation of success are not founded, as Monma clearly and explicitly discloses the electrolyte of a battery system including the positive electrode active material comprising Li, Al, Mg, O, F, and a transition metal (shared by the instant disclosure) may be suitably an electrolyte solution or a solid polymer electrolyte. Therefore, Monma embodies battery systems using the aforementioned positive electrode active material which perform suitably implementing either a solid or liquid electrolyte. Further, there is nothing in the disclosure of Xin or Monma to suggest that such a modification isn’t feasible and that the aforementioned benefits of the solid electrolyte system prompting the ordinary artisan to make such a modification wouldn’t be obtained.
With respect to arguments directed toward the surface layer of Xin, the Examiner presents that while applicant argues that the surface layer of Xin is specifically engineered to function at the interface with a liquid organic carbonate electrolyte, applicant has not provided the evidence in Xin which supports such a conclusion. While there is a brief mention of the surface layer of Xin preventing the dissolution of Mn in the electrolyte, nothing in Xin that teaches away from the implementation of a solid electrolyte system or inability to maintain the protective properties and applicant has not provided any evidence that would preclude such a modification of Xin by Monma as described above.
In the remarks filed September 10th, 2026, applicant argues that a proposed modification that changes the principle of operation of the prior art reference being modified weighs against a finding of obviousness.
These arguments have been fully considered but are not found persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner presents that while applicant argues that Xin is orientated toward, optimized for, and tested exclusively in liquid electrolytes, and such a switching to a polymer solid-state system is not a minor variation, the Monma clearly and explicitly discloses the electrolyte of a battery system including the positive electrode active material comprising Li, Al, Mg, O, F, and a transition metal (shared by the instant disclosure) may be suitably an electrolyte solution or a solid polymer electrolyte. Such a teaching lends itself to Monma providing context that a liquid or a solid electrolyte system are possible compositions of the electrolyte in a battery system in the art.
Therefore, Monma embodies battery systems using the aforementioned positive electrode active material which perform suitably implementing either a solid or liquid electrolyte. Further, there is nothing in the disclosure of Xin or Monma to suggest that such a modification isn’t feasible and that the aforementioned benefits of the solid electrolyte system prompting the ordinary artisan to make such a modification wouldn’t be obtained.
In the remarks filed September 10th, 2026, applicant argues that there is no evidence showing that the skilled artisan would have expected Xin’s particular surface-engineered NMC material which was designed for and tested only in liquid cells to work predictably after conversion to a polymer electrolyte system.
These arguments have been fully considered but are not found persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner presents there is nothing in Xin that teaches away from the implementation of a solid electrolyte system or inability to maintain the protective properties and applicant has not provided any evidence that would preclude such a modification of Xin by Monma 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 OLIVIA A JONES whose telephone number is (571)272-1718. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30 AM - 4:30 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, Marla McConnell can be reached at (571) 270-7692. 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.
/O.A.J./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
