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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2 are amended, claims 5-14 are newly added. No new matter is included herein. Claims 1-14, as filed 10 July 2025, are examined herein.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejection under 35 USC 103, Applicant argues (page 5) that it would not have been obvious to select a combination of WO2 and WO3. Applicant's arguments are not persuasive. The instant claim limitation requires WO2 or a combination of WO2 and WO3. Given the finite list of compounds that suppress particle growth during sintering, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill to select WO2, which is one of a finite number of compounds taught to have the desired effect, or both WO2 and WO3, because Shizuka explicitly contemplates [0277] that these additives may be used alone or in combination. See MPEP 2143(I)(b).
Applicant further argues that Shizuka does not teach or suggest spectra of rising positions of peaks of L-absorption edges of the tungsten included in the positive electrode active material, tungsten included in WO2, and tungsten included in WO3 satisfy (a – b)/(c – b) ≤ 0.86. This argument is moot because Shizuka as modified above discloses a positive active material which contains WO2 or which contains both WO2 and WO3. The instant specification discloses (Table 1 Example 1) that the use of WO2 as additive creates a material meeting the instant claim limitation. The instant specification at Table 1, Examples 2-12, comprising both WO2 and WO3, also meets the instant limitation.
Shizuka discloses ([0019]) the use of tungsten at 0.01 – 1.8 mol% with respect to metal and lithium, which overlaps the tungsten content, 0.1 mol or less with respect to lithium, of the instant invention as disclosed at ([0019]) of the instant specification. Shizuka discloses ([0314]) sintering at 900˚C, which falls within the temperature range (830˚C to 900˚C) disclosed in the instant specification at ([0051]). Because both the chemistry and the sintering process of the instant invention are rendered obvious by Shizuka, the material of Shizuka should therefore have a structure that, when analyzed by X-ray absorption fine structure, meets the instant claim limitation.
Said differently, the material of Shizuka is substantially similar to that of Claim 1 (as laid out above). Accordingly, absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, it is understood that the material would inherently have the claimed XAFS result. (MPEP 2112.01, I-II).
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 includes the limitation the positive electrode comprising a positive electrode active material including tungsten, wherein in measurement results of the positive electrode, tungsten(IV) oxide represented by WO2, and tungsten(VI) oxide represented by WO3 by X-ray absorption fine structure(XAFS) analysis, spectra of rising positions of peaks of L-absorption edges of the tungsten included in the positive electrode active material, tungsten included in WO2, and tungsten included in WO3 satisfy (a – b)/(c – b) ≤ 0.86 , the rising positions are in a range of 10,200 eV to 10,205 eV, a represents energy (eV) in a portion where a slope of a spectrum is steepest in the range of 10,200 eV to 10,205 eV in a measurement result of the positive electrode by the X-ray absorption fine structure analysis, A represents spectral intensity for a (eV) in the measurement result of the positive electrode by the X-ray absorption fine structure analysis, b represents energy (eV) in a portion where spectral intensity is A in the range of 10,200 eV to 10,205 eV in a measurement result of WO2 by the X-ray absorption fine structure analysis, and c represents energy (eV) in a portion where spectral intensity is A in the range of 10,200 eV to 10,205 eV in a measurement result of WO3 by the X-ray absorption fine structure analysis. Examiner notes that this claim limitation requires the material to be capable of measurement by XAFS, but does not require that the XAFS measurement take place.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim refers to spectral intensity “A”, which is inconsistent with the lower case “a” used in the equation.
Claims 11-13 are objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein the thickness …. Is 10 µm~250 µm”. Applicant is asked to amend the claim to state: “about 10 µm to about 250 µm” or “10 µm to 250 µm”. (See [0031] of the instant specification.) Claims 12 and 13 have similar use of “~”. Applicant is also requested to amend claims 11-13 to specify that the thickness being measures is that of the positive electrode material layer (see [0032] of the instant specification.) Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shizuka (US 20100209771 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Shizuka teaches a positive electrode for a lithium-ion secondary battery (abstract), the positive electrode comprising a positive electrode active material including tungsten, ([0662-0663] teaching production of a positive active material including WO3 as a precursor.)
Regarding the limitation wherein the tungsten in the positive electrode is tetravalent or is a mixture of tetravalent tungsten and hexavalent tungsten, the instant claim limitation requires WO2 or a combination of WO2 and WO3. Shizuka discloses ([0273-0274]) that it is desirable to suppress growth of active substance particles during sintering to a obtain a crystal structure suitable for battery performance. At ([0277]) “Example compounds of the additives that suppress particle growth and sintering during firing include … WO2 and WO3. These additives may be used alone or in combination of two or more.”
Given the finite list of compounds that suppress particle growth during sintering, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill to select WO2, which is one of a finite number of compounds taught to have the desired effect, or to select both WO2 and WO3, because Shizuka explicitly contemplates [0277] that these additives may be used alone or in combination, with a reasonable expectation of successfully suppressing the particle growth during sintering. See MPEP 2143(I)(b). The selection of WO2 or the selection of both WO2 and WO3 each meet the instant claim limitation.
Shizuka does not explicitly teach wherein in measurement results of the positive electrode, tungsten(IV) oxide represented by WO2, and tungsten(VI) oxide represented by WO3 by X-ray absorption fine structure analysis, spectra of rising positions of peaks of L-absorption edges of the tungsten included in the positive electrode active material, tungsten included in WO2, and tungsten included in WO3 satisfy (a – b)/(c – b) ≤ 0.86 , the rising positions are in a range of 10,200 eV to 10,205 eV, a represents an amount of energy (eV) in a portion where a slope of a spectrum is steepest in the range of 10,200 eV to 10,205 eV in a measurement result of the positive electrode by the X-ray absorption fine structure analysis, b represents an amount of energy (eV) in a portion where spectral intensity is A in the range of 10,200 eV to 10,205 eV in a measurement result of WO2 by the X-ray absorption fine structure analysis, c represents an amount of energy (eV) in a portion where spectral intensity is A in the range of 10,200 eV to 10,205 eV in a measurement result of WO3 by the X-ray absorption fine structure analysis, and a represents spectral intensity for a (eV) in the measurement result of the positive electrode by the X-ray absorption fine structure analysis.
However, Shizuka as modified above discloses a positive active material which contains WO2, or which contains both WO2 and WO3. The instant specification discloses (Table 1 Example 1) that the use of WO2 as additive creates a material meeting the instant claim limitation. The instant specification at Table 1, Examples 2-12, comprising both WO2 and WO3, also meets the instant limitation.
Shizuka discloses ([0019]) the use of tungsten at 0.01 – 1.8 mol% with respect to metal and lithium, which overlaps the tungsten content, 0.1 mol or less with respect to lithium, of the instant invention as disclosed at ([0019]) of the instant specification. Shizuka discloses ([0314]) sintering at 900˚C, which falls within the temperature range (830˚C to 900˚C) disclosed in the instant specification at ([0051]). Because both the chemistry and the sintering process of the instant invention are rendered obvious by Shizuka, the material of Shizuka should therefore have a structure that, when analyzed by X-ray absorption fine structure, meets the instant claim limitation. Said differently, the material of Shizuka is substantially similar to that of Claim 1 (as laid out above). Accordingly, absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, it is understood that the material would inherently have the claimed XAFS result. (MPEP 2112.01, I-II).
Regarding claim 2, Shizuka teaches all of the limitations as considered above, and further Shizuka further discloses ([0662]) making the active material with a molar formula of Li:Ni:Mn:Co:W = 1.05:0.50:0.30:0.20:0.010, which Examiner has calculated to be about 2.8% tungsten by weight, which falls within the range of the instant claim limitation, wherein the positive electrode active material includes the tungsten in an amount of 0.015% by mass to 3.1% by mass.
Regarding claim 3, Shizuka teaches all of the limitations as considered above. Shizuka does not explicitly teach wherein (a – b)/(c – b) is 0.15 or more and 0.65 or less. However, Shizuka as modified above (claim 1) discloses a positive active material which contains WO2 or which contains both WO2 and WO3. Shizuka discloses at [0278] the use of tungsten at 0.01 – 1.8 mol% with respect to metal and lithium, which overlaps the tungsten content, 0.1 mol or less with respect to lithium, of the instant invention as disclosed at ([0278]) of the instant specification. Shizuka discloses ([0314]) sintering at 900˚C, which falls within the temperature range (830˚C to 900˚C) disclosed in the instant specification at ([0051]). Because both the chemistry and the sintering process of the instant invention are rendered obvious by Shizuka, the material of Shizuka should therefore inherently have a structure that, when analyzed by X-ray absorption fine structure, meets the instant claim limitation.
Regarding claim 4, Shizuka teaches all of the limitations as considered above, and Shizuka further discloses the positive electrode active material includes a lithium metal composite oxide; (NMC as taught at [0662]) and the tungsten included in the positive electrode active material is included at least in a surface of the positive electrode active material. (As taught at [0663] and FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 6, Examiner notes that the claim 1 includes the limitation (emphasis added) “wherein the tungsten in the positive electrode is tetravalent or is a mixture of tetravalent tungsten and hexavalent tungsten”. Therefore, the limitation of claim 6 is limiting a not positively required limitation. For the purpose of compact prosecution, Examiner has examined this limitation even though it is optional.
Shizuka teaches all of the limitations as considered above. Shizuka discloses ([0273-0274]) that it is desirable to suppress growth of active substance particles during sintering to a obtain a crystal structure suitable for battery performance. At ([0277]) “Example compounds of the additives that suppress particle growth and sintering during firing include … WO2 …. WO3… Li2WO4. These additives may be used alone or in combination of two or more.” Shizuka further discloses [0277] that WO3 and Li2WO4 are particularly preferred.
Given the finite list of compounds that suppress particle growth during sintering, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill to add WO3 and Li2WO4, to the positive electrode of modified Shizuka, with a reasonable expectation of successfully suppressing the particle growth during sintering. See MPEP 2143(I)(b).
Regarding claim 7, Shizuka teaches all of the limitations as considered above, and Shizuka further discloses ([0006] and FIG. 1) wherein the positive electrode active material further includes nickel, cobalt, and manganese.
Regarding claim 8, Shizuka teaches all of the limitations as considered above, and Shizuka further discloses a non-limiting example where ([0662]) the active material has a molar formula of Li:Ni:Mn:Co:W = 1.05:0.50:0.30:0.20:0.010, which Examiner has calculated to be about 2.8% tungsten by weight. At [0278] Shizuka discloses the additive can be added at 0.01 mol% to 2 mol%, and that if too little is added, the beneficial effects may not be obtained, while if too much is added, degradation of the battery performance may result. However, Shizuka does not explicitly disclose wherein the tungsten with respect to a total of the lithium metal composite oxide and WO2 is 0.6% by mass.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to modify the amount of WO2 with respect to the lithium metal composite oxide, with a reasonable expectation of successfully balancing the beneficial effect of suppressed particle growth with degradation of battery performance, with a reasonable expectation of selecting a value meeting the instant claim limitation.
Regarding claim 9, Shizuka teaches all of the limitations as considered above, and Shizuka further discloses a non-limiting example where ([0662]) the active material has a molar formula of Li:Ni:Mn:Co:W = 1.05:0.50:0.30:0.20:0.010, which Examiner has calculated to be about 2.8% tungsten by weight. At [0278] Shizuka discloses the additive can be added at 0.01 mol% to 2 mol%, and that if too little is added, the beneficial effects may not be obtained, while if too much is added, degradation of the battery performance may result. However, Shizuka does not explicitly disclose wherein the tungsten with respect to a total of the lithium metal composite oxide, tungsten(IV) oxide represented by WO2, and tungsten(VI) oxide represented by WO3 is 0.45% by mass.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to optimize the amount of WO2 and WO3 with respect to the lithium metal composite oxide, with a reasonable expectation of successfully balancing the beneficial effect of suppressed particle growth with degradation of battery performance, with a reasonable expectation of selecting a value meeting the instant claim limitation.
Regarding claim 10, Shizuka teaches all of the limitations as considered above. Regarding the limitation wherein the positive electrode active material was formed by firing a mixture of composite hydroxide particles, lithium carbonate, tungsten(IV) oxide, and tungsten(VI) oxide in an electric furnace at 870˚C for 15 hours, the limitation " formed by firing a mixture …. " is a product-by-process limitation. Based on the instant specification, it is not clear that there is a structural difference between the material of Shizuka (raw materials are fired at 700 ˚C to 1300 ˚C for 30 min to 20 hours, as disclosed at [0400] and [0403]) and the material produced by the claimed process. From examination of the specification, an implied structure from the claimed production process has not been identified. As such as long as the final product of the prior art has the same chemistry as that of the claimed positive active material, it will be interpreted as reading on the recited claim limitation.
Regarding claim 11, Shizuka teaches all of the limitations as considered above, and Shizuka further discloses [0546] wherein a thickness of the positive electrode active material is 10 µm -200 µm, which falls within the claimed range of 10 µm~250 µm.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Shizuka teaches all of the limitations as considered above, and Shizuka further discloses [0546] wherein a thickness of the positive electrode active material is 10 µm -200 µm, which encompasses the claimed range of 20 µm ~200 µm.
Shizuka discloses at [0005] the motivation to increase the capacity of the battery. At [0547] Shizuka contemplates the motivation to increase the filling density of the positive electrode active substance. At [0540] Shizuka discloses a positive electrode current collector which is usually 1-5 µm in thickness. At [0542] and [0543] Shizuka contemplates that if the active material layer has too much binder or conductive additive, the capacity of the battery may decrease. A person of ordinary skill would understand that the relationship between the thickness of positive electrode active material and the thickness of the positive electrode current collector would similarly contribute to the battery capacity or loss of capacity. Said differently, for a given thickness of current collector, it is desirable to have the positive active material layer as thick as possible (without impacting battery performance) in order to optimize gravimetric and volumetric battery capacity.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to optimize the thickness of the positive electrode active material layer in order to maximize the battery capacity, with a reasonable expectation of selecting a value in the overlapping part of the range. Examiner notes that there is no evidence for criticality of the material thickness found in the specification.
This also meets the limitation of claim 13, wherein a thickness of the positive electrode active material is 30 µm -150 µm.
Regarding claim 14, Shizuka teaches all of the limitations as considered above, and Shizuka further discloses a non-limiting example where ([0662]) the active material has a molar formula of Li:Ni:Mn:Co:W = 1.05:0.50:0.30:0.20:0.010, which Examiner has calculated to be about 2.8% tungsten by weight. At [0278] Shizuka discloses the additive can be added at 0.01 mol% to 2 mol%, and that if too little is added, the beneficial effects may not be obtained, while if too much is added, degradation of the battery performance may result. However, Shizuka does not explicitly disclose wherein the positive electrode active material includes the tungsten in an amount of 2.9% by mass to 3.1% by mass.
Examiner notes that if the amount of WO2 and WO3 is optimized, the amount of tungsten is therefore optimized. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to optimize the amount of WO2 and WO3 with respect to the lithium metal composite oxide, with a reasonable expectation of successfully balancing the beneficial effect of suppressed particle growth with degradation of battery performance, with a reasonable expectation of selecting a value meeting the instant claim limitation.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shizuka (US 20100209771 A1), as set forth in claim 1 above, and in view of Jimenez (US 20200411837 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Shizuka teaches all of the limitations as considered above, including the selection of WO2- to suppress particle growth, as rendered obvious above. However, Shizuka does not explicitly disclose wherein the tetravalent tungsten includes both WO2 and WCl4.
Jimenez discloses (abstract, [0016]) a similar positive active material which may be NMC and which may be coated with a tungsten compound. At [0007-0009] Jimenez discloses the motivation of using the coating to prevent surface reactions that decompose the electrolyte. At [0038], WCl4 is suggested as one of the possible surface treatment compounds.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to add the WCl4 of Jimenez to the WO2 as taught by modified Shizuka, with a reasonable expectation of successfully achieving the desirable result of preventing surface reactions that decompose the electrolyte
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAIRE A RUTISER whose telephone number is (571)272-1969. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM M-F.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached on 571-270-1292. 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.
CLAIRE A. RUTISER
Examiner
Art Unit 1751
/C.A.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 10/20/2025