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 .
Summary
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments submitted January 30, 2026 have been entered into the file. Currently claims 1-4, 7-8, and 11 are amended, resulting in claims 1-11 pending for examination.
Response to Arguments
Response – Specification Objections
The objection to the specification due to informalities is overcome by applicant’s amendments to the specification in the response received on January 30, 2026. The objection to the specification is withdrawn.
Response – Claim Objections
The objection to claim 2 due to informalities is overcome by applicant’s amendments to claim 2 in the response received on January 30, 2026. The objection to claim 2 is withdrawn.
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC § 112
The rejections of claims 3-4, 7-8, and 11 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 are overcome by Applicant’s amendments to claims 3, 4, 7, 8, and 11 in the response received January 30, 2026. These rejections are withdrawn.
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC § 102 and 103
The following rejections are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 in the response received January 30, 2026:
Claims 1-2, 5-6, and 9-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takanashi (Takanashi, S. and Abe, Y. Improvement of the electrochemical performance of an NCA positive-electrode material of lithium ion battery by forming an Al-rich surface layer. Ceramics International. 43, 9246-9252 (2017)) in view of Washida (US 2017/0012286 A1).
Claims 4 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takanashi in view of Washida, as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and in further view of Kageura (US 2017/0358798 A1).
Claims 3 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takanashi in view of Washida, as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and in further view of Shi (Shi, S.J. Preparation and characterization of microporous Li1.2Mn0.54Ni0.13Co0.13O2 cathode material for lithium-ion batteries via aerogel template. Journal of Power Sources. 240, 140-148 (2013)) and Wu (US 20190252671 A1).
Claims 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takanashi in view of Washida, Shi, and Wu, as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and in further view of Kageura.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claims 3 and 7, the limitation “the diffraction peak on a low angle side is defined as a peak A” is interpreted to indicate that, given the presence of two diffraction peaks within the claimed range of 2Θ = 38.5 ± 1, the peak that is located at a lower 2Θ value is peak A.
The limitation “the diffraction peak on a high angle side is defined as peak B” is interpreted to indicate that, given the presence of two diffraction peaks within the claimed range of 2Θ = 38.5 ± 1, the peak that is located at a higher 2Θ value is peak B.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (Sun, Y.Y. et al. Surface modification of Li(Li0.17Ni0.2Co0.05Mn0.58)O2 with LiAlSiO4 fast ion conductor as cathode material for Li ion batteries. Electrochimica Acta. 176, 1464-1475 (2015)).
Regarding claim 1, Sun teaches a positive electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery (Sun title):
containing Li, Ni and an element X (Sun abstract, X = Al and Si)
comprising particles that include a lithium metal composite oxide having a coating on a surface thereof (Sun abstract, LiAlSiO4 coating)
wherein the coating contains the element X (Sun abstract, LiAlSiO4 coating)
the coating is a compound in which the element X and Li are bonded to each other (Sun abstract, LiAlSiO4)
Sun does not explicitly state the abundance of element X (Al and Si) and the abundance of Li near a surface of the particle, as measured by XPS. However, since Sun teaches that the coating is LiAlSiO4 and the ratio of the stoichiometric values, X/Li, is 2 ( (Al + Si)/Li = (1 +1)/1 = 2), there is a reasonable basis to conclude the ratio Xat/Liat falls within the claimed range.
Sun is also silent regarding a standard deviation calculated from the abundances of element X (Al and Si) near the surfaces of a plurality of the particles.
Sun teaches that the coating layer “possesses good mechanical properties that can withstand the structure change and protect the electrode from corrosion in the electrolyte” (Sun Section 3.3. Transmission electron microscopy). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to tune the positive electrode active material particles to have approximately the same amount of Al and Si on the surfaces, thus resulting in a standard deviation of less than or equal to 13.0, as claimed, in order to achieve sufficient coating of the particle surfaces and promote the beneficial effect of protecting from corrosion due to contact with the electrolyte.
Regarding claim 2, Sun teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Sun further teaches no diffraction peak observed within a range of 2Θ = 40° to 43° in an X-ray diffraction measurement (Sun Fig. 1).
Regarding claims 3 and 7, Sun teaches all features of claims 1 and 2, as described above. Sun further teaches two diffraction peaks present within a range of 2Θ = 38.5 ± 1° (Sun Fig. 1). Sun teaches the peaks (006), (102), and (101) and that the (006) and (102) peaks are present within the range 2Θ =38.5 ± 1° (Sun Fig. 1). Sun further teaches that splitting of the (006/102) peaks “is characteristic of the well-ordered layered structure” (Sun Section 3.1.) Sun is silent regarding the crystallite sizes and integrated intensities obtained from these peaks.
It is reasonable to presume that LA/LB ≤ 1.50 and 0.25 ≤ LA/LB ≤ 0.60 are inherent to Sun. Support for said presumption is found in that Sun and the instant disclosure both disclose positive electrode active materials containing Li, Ni and an element X, wherein there is a coating on the positive electrode active material particles comprising a compound in which X and Li are bonded to each other, that is made by:
forming a metal composite hydroxide using coprecipitation (instant specification [100-124]; Sun Section 2.1) followed by drying (instant specification [125], Sun Section 2.1)
mixing the resulting metal composite hydroxide with a lithium compound (instant specification [125]; Sun Section 2.1) and calcinating to obtain a lithium metal oxide (instant specification [136-138]; Sun Section 2.1)
forming a coating containing the element X on the surfaces of the lithium metal oxide particles (instant specification [148]; Sun Section 2.1)
drying the obtained mixture to remove solvent (instant specification [161-162]; Sun Section 2.1)
after drying, performing thermal treatment in a range of 400°C to 700°C for 4 to 10 hours (instant specification [164]; Sun Section 2.1, 400°C for 5 hours)
Additionally, the x-ray diffraction measurement of the positive electrode active material of Sun has no peaks within 40°-43° (instant specification [65]), two peaks within 38.5±1° (instant specification [68]), a peak within 18.5±1° (instant specification [74]), and a peak within 44.5±1° (instant specification [74]).
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. See MPEP 2112.01
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Sun teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Sun further teaches a positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery comprising the positive electrode active material according to claim 1 (cathode, Sun Section 2.3. Electrochemical measurements) and a lithium secondary battery comprising the positive electrode according to claim 5 (Sun Section 2.3 Electrochemical measurements).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Sun teaches all features of claims 1 and 2, as described above. Sun further teaches a positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery comprising the positive electrode active material according to claim 2 (cathode, Sun Section 2.3. Electrochemical measurements) and a lithium secondary battery comprising the positive electrode according to claim 9 (Sun Section 2.3 Electrochemical measurements).
Claims 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun, as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, in view of Kageura (US 2017/0358798 A1).
Regarding claims 4 and 8, Sun teaches all features of claims 1-2, as described above. Sun further teaches a peak present within a range of 2Θ = 18.5± 1° and a peak present with a range of 2Θ = 44.5 ± 1° (Sun Fig. 1). Sun is silent regarding the crystallite sizes and integrated intensities obtained from these peaks.
Kageura teaches a positive electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery including lithium composite oxide particles containing Li, Ni, Co, and Mn (Kageura abstract), as taught by Sun. Kageura further teaches the ratio (crystalline size obtained from a peak within 2Θ = 18.7 ± 1°) / (crystallite size obtained from a peak within 2Θ = 44.4 ± 1°) is 1.60 to 2.40, wherein this ratio corresponds to the LC/LD ratio claimed, in order to obtain a lithium secondary battery with higher discharge capacity (Kageura [52], [58-59]).
Kageura further teaches that the integrated intensity ratio of the (003) peak to the (104) peak is preferably 1 or more to 1.5 or less (Kageura [81]; (003) peak corresponds to a peak within 2Θ = 18.7 ± 1°, (104) peak corresponds to a peak within 2Θ = 44.4 ± 1°, Kageura [55]), wherein this ratio corresponds to the Ic/Id ratio claimed, in order to obtain a lithium secondary battery with higher discharge capacity (“improving the effects of the present invention” Kageura [81], “exhibit higher discharge capacity” Kageura [21]).
Since Sun and Kageura both teach positive electrode active materials for a lithium secondary battery including lithium composite oxide particles containing Li, Ni, Co, and Mn and Kageura teaches that the ratio (crystalline size obtained from a peak within 2Θ = 18.7 ± 1°) / (crystallite size obtained from a peak within 2Θ = 44.4 ± 1°) is 1.60 to 2.40 and the integrated intensity ratio of the (003) peak to the (104) peak is preferably 1 or more to 1.5 or less in order to achieve higher discharge capacity, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fabricate the positive electrode active material of Sun to have the (crystalline size obtained from a peak within 2Θ = 18.7 ± 1°) / (crystallite size obtained from a peak within 2Θ = 44.4 ± 1°) ratio and (003)/(104) ratio be within the ranges taught by Kageura in order to obtain a positive electrode active material with higher discharge capacity.
The 2Θ peak location ranges and corresponding crystallite sizes and integrated intensities of Kageura substantially overlap the claimed ranges in the instant claims 4 and 8. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the ranges taught by Kageura, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Claims 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun, as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, in view of Kageura.
Regarding claim 11, Sun teaches all features of claims 1 and 3, as described above. Sun further teaches a peak present within a range of 2Θ = 18.5± 1° and a peak present with a range of 2Θ = 44.5 ± 1° (Sun Fig. 1). Sun is silent regarding the crystallite sizes and integrated intensities obtained from these peaks.
Kageura teaches a positive electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery including lithium composite oxide particles containing Li, Ni, Co, and Mn, as taught by Sun (Sun abstract). Kageura further teaches the ratio (crystalline size obtained from a peak within 2Θ = 18.7 ± 1°) / (crystallite size obtained from a peak within 2Θ = 44.4 ± 1°) is 1.60 to 2.40, wherein this ratio corresponds to the LC/LD ratio claimed, in order to obtain a lithium secondary battery with higher discharge capacity (Kageura [52], [58-59]).
Kageura further teaches that the integrated intensity ratio of the (003) peak to the (104) peak is preferably 1 or more to 1.5 or less (Kageura [81]; (003) peak corresponds to a peak within 2Θ = 18.7 ± 1°, (104) peak corresponds to a peak within 2Θ = 44.4 ± 1°, Kageura [55]), wherein this ratio corresponds to the Ic/Id ratio claimed, in order to obtain a lithium secondary battery with higher discharge capacity (“improving the effects of the present invention” Kageura [81], “exhibit higher discharge capacity” Kageura [21]).
Since Sun and Kageura both teach positive electrode active materials for a lithium secondary battery including lithium composite oxide particles containing Li, Ni, Co, and Mn and Kageura teaches that the ratio (crystalline size obtained from a peak within 2Θ = 18.7 ± 1°) / (crystallite size obtained from a peak within 2Θ = 44.4 ± 1°) is 1.60 to 2.40 and the integrated intensity ratio of the (003) peak to the (104) peak is preferably 1 or more to 1.5 or less in order to achieve higher discharge capacity, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fabricate the positive electrode active material of Sun to have the (crystalline size obtained from a peak within 2Θ = 18.7 ± 1°) / (crystallite size obtained from a peak within 2Θ = 44.4 ± 1°) ratio and (003)/(104) ratio be within the ranges taught by Kageura in order to obtain a positive electrode active material with higher discharge capacity.
The 2Θ peak location ranges and corresponding crystallite sizes and integrated intensities of Kageura substantially overlap the claimed ranges in the instant claim 11. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the ranges taught by Kageura, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tsunozaki (US 2015/0024272 A1): appears to disclose positive electrode active materials for lithium secondary batteries comprising lithium composite oxide particles and Al present on the surface of the particles (abstract).
Cao (Cao, H. et al. LiAlO2 coated LiCoO2 as cathode material for lithium ion batteries. Solid State Ionics. 176, 911-914 (2005)): appears to disclose a positive electrode active material with a coating comprising Li and Al (Cao title, abstract, Fig. 2).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA S CASERTO whose telephone number is (571)272-5114. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 5 pm ET.
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.
/J.S.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights