DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/13/26 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment and arguments, filed 08/13/26, have been fully considered. Claim(s) 1 is/are amended; claim(s) 2–6 and 8–12 stand(s) as originally or previously presented; claim(s) 7 and 13–18 is/are canceled; and claims 19–24 are added without entering new matter. Examiner affirms that the original disclosure provides adequate support for the amendment.
Upon considering said amendment and arguments, the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection set forth in the Office Action mailed 04/29/26 has/have been withdrawn. Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection below.
Claim Objections
Claim 23 is objected to for the following informality: in lines 2 and 3, “the tungsten-containing coating comprises both a lithium tungsten oxide and a tungsten oxide” should read “the tungsten-containing coating comprises both [[a]] the lithium tungsten oxide and [[a]] the tungsten oxide” for proper antecedence given parent claim 6’s reciting “the tungsten-containing coating comprises a lithium tungsten oxide or tungsten oxide”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text forming the basis for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 may be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim(s) 1–6, 8–12, 19–21, 23 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. (JP 2010040383 A, with mach. translation) in view of Komukai et al. (US 20180337403 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 12, and 19, Watanabe discloses a lithium secondary battery (Abstract, exs.), comprising a cathode (positive electrode, e.g., Ex. 1, ¶ 0130 and 0132) and an anode facing the cathode (negative electrode, Ex. 1, ¶ 0131), wherein the cathode comprises a cathode active material (Abstract, ¶ 0130) comprising a plurality of active material particles comprising a lithium-nickel metal oxide and having a form of a secondary particle in which a plurality of primary particles are aggregated (¶ 0038, 0040); and a tungsten-containing coating formed on an outer surface of the secondary particle (surface layer with tungstic acid or tungstate compound (e.g., ¶ 0020 and exs.) on secondary particle (implied from ¶ 0020 and 0040).
As seen above, Watanabe discloses that the coating is on the secondary particle’s outer surface, yet, in appearing unconcerned with the coating’s specific structure beyond that it should primarily exist on the secondary particle’s outer surface, Watanabe fails to explicitly disclose that the tungsten-containing coating partially exists between the primary particles in an inner region of the secondary particle, and an amount of tungsten present on the outer surface of the secondary particle is greater than an amount of tungsten between the primary particles in the inner region of the secondary particle.
Komukai teaches an analogous lithium metal oxide positive active material including aggregated secondary particles coated with a W-based film (Abstract, fig. 1). As seen in fig. 1, the majority of the coating is on the secondary particle’s outer surface (i.e., on primary particles constituting the secondary particle’s circumference/surface), while the coating partially exists between primary particles in an inner region of the secondary particle. Such is further seen in ¶ 0189, where, during manufacturing, the tungsten compound dissolved in the slurry partially permeates into the secondary particle’s interior (¶ 0189). Komukai teaches that such coating forms Li conduction paths and reduces reaction resistance to improve output (¶ 0066).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure Watanabe’s W coating to partially permeate into the secondary particle’s interior between primary particles—so that the coating would partially exist between the primary particles in an inner region of the secondary particle, and an amount of tungsten present on the outer surface of the secondary particle would be greater than an amount of tungsten between the primary particles in the inner region of the secondary particle—with the reasonable expectation of achieving a successful coating as a known configuration in the art as well as reducing reaction resistance to improve output, as taught by Komukai.
Watanabe further discloses preferably 0.03–0.5 at% W—equivalent to mol% as a ratio—relative to the active material’s transition metals (¶ 0057), which, as seen throughout the examples, are in the ratio Ni0.77Co0.20Al0.03 (from Li1.03Ni0.77Co0.20Al0.03O2 in Table 1, p. 25). Thus, the content of W, based on the below calculations, would be 954~15906 ppm W.
PNG
media_image1.png
301
551
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Although Watanabe may fail to explicitly disclose 100–5000 ppm W (claim 1), 200–5000 ppm (claim 2), or 500–5000 ppm W (claim 19), Watanabe’s range significantly overlaps the instant ranges such that the skilled artisan could have routinely selected within each overlap with a reasonable expectation of forming a successful active material with sufficient W coating (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Although Watanabe’s W content is not explicitly “measured by an ICP”, Examiner submits that the skilled artisan would have reasonably expected substantially similar W content if evaluating Watanabe’s active material as recited because the mass of W would be the same regardless of measuring technique, absent additional evidence. Further, Examiner observes no criticality or comparison in the specification to measuring via ICP.
More importantly, however, Watanabe discloses that if the amount of W is below the above range, suppression of gas generation is unobtainable, whereas if the amount of W is above the range, discharge capacity decreases (¶ 0062). To balance these effects, then, it would have been obvious to arrive at the recited ranges by routinely optimizing the W content, including within the overlap (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Watanabe further discloses that an amount of carbonate ion content in the active material is preferably ≤ 0.05 wt% (¶ 0024, see also, e.g., Ex. 6 with 0.01 w%, Table 1), because reducing the carbonate content reduces gas generation (¶ 0024). Such yields a content of carbon of ≤ 0.010%, i.e., ≤ 100 ppm, given that C ≈ 20 wt% of CO3. Such ≤ 100 ppm falls within ≤ 500 ppm.
Although such is not explicitly “measured by a CS analyzer” (instead via AGK method, ¶ 0024), as with the W content, the skilled artisan would have reasonably expected substantially similar C content if evaluating Watanabe’s active material as recited because the mass of C would be the same regardless of measuring technique, absent additional evidence. Further, Examiner observes no criticality or comparison in the specification to measuring via CS.
More importantly, though, as established above, the skilled artisan would have sought to minimize the carbonate and, thus, C content to reduce gas generation (¶ 0024), so it would have been further obvious to arrive at the recited ranges by routinely optimizing the C content (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding claims 3 and 20, modified Watanabe discloses the cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1.
As established above, Watanabe discloses a content of C, even if not explicitly measured by CS, of ≤ 100 ppm. As there appears to be no criticality in the specification to 10–300 ppm C (claim 3) or 10–100 ppm (claim 20), Watanabe’s ≤ 100 ppm overlaps each range so significantly as to provide sufficient specificity to fall within 10–300 ppm and 10–100 ppm (MPEP 2131.01 (II)).
Arguendo, if Applicant can convincingly show that ≤ 100 ppm is not sufficiently specific to read on 10–300 ppm or 10–100 ppm, as discussed above, the skilled artisan would have routinely arrived at the instant ranges by minimizing the C content to reduce gas generation (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding claims 4, 5, and 21, modified Watanabe discloses the cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1.
As established above, even if not explicitly measured as recited, Watanabe discloses a W content of 954~15906 ppm and a carbon content of ≤ 100 ppm. Such yields a ratio of W/C of no higher than 9.54~159.06, which significantly overlaps 3–90 (claim 4), 4–65 (claim 5), and 10–65 (claim 21) such that the skilled artisan could have routinely selected within each overlap with a reasonable expectation of forming a successful active material with suitable W and C contents (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
More importantly, though, as further discussed, the skilled artisan would have routinely arrived at each ratio by balancing W’s coating benefits of gas suppression with proper capacity, alongside minimizing the C content to reduce gas generation (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding claims 6 and 23, modified Watanabe discloses the cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1.
Watanabe further discloses many possible compounds forming the tungsten-containing coating, including tungstic acid as well as many different tungstate salts such as ammonium tungstate, calcium tungstate, lithium tungstate, magnesium tungstate, potassium tungstate, and sodium tungstate, and discloses that such may be used together to reduce gas generation from electrolyte decomposition (¶ 0042, 0043). Further, such compounds may thermally decompose to promote tungstate ions—and, thus, the oxide form—on the active material (¶ 0066). Such further accords with one skilled in the art’s general understanding of tungstic acid, which would be a hydrated tungsten oxide that, upon heating, would lose water and return to tungsten oxide.
Although Watanabe may fail to explicitly disclose that the tungsten-containing coating comprises a lithium tungsten oxide or tungsten oxide (claim 6) or both (claim 23), it would have been obvious to routinely select lithium tungsten oxide as well as tungsten oxide (as decomposition product) as Watanabe’s W-containing coating with the reasonable expectation of achieving a successful coating that reduces gas generation from electrolyte decomposition.
Regarding claims 8, 11, and 24, modified Watanabe discloses the cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1.
Watanabe further discloses a general lithium-nickel metal oxide formula of LiaNixCoyAlzO2, where 0.2 ≤ a ≤ 1.05, 0.60 < x < 0.90, 0.10 < y < 0.40, 0.01 < z < 0.20, and x + y + z = 1 (¶ 0026), i.e., a molar ratio of Ni among elements other than Li and O in the lithium-nickel metal oxide of greater than 0.6 to less than 0.9, as well as an M in instant Chemical Formula 1 of Co and Al, but Watanabe fails to embody a molar ratio of Ni among elements other than Li and O in the lithium-nickel metal oxide of ≥ 0.8 (claim 8), a structure represented by Chemical Formula 1 (claim 11), and a molar ratio of Ni among elements other than Li and O in the lithium-nickel metal oxide of ≥ 0.88 (claim 24).
However, Watanabe discloses that if a falls below 0.2, the crystal structure collapses, whereas if a exceeds 1.05, lithium leaches outside the oxide to hinder processability (¶ 0027). If x falls below 0.60, discharge capacity decreases, whereas if x exceeds 0.90, the crystal structure’s stability decreases, reducing capacity and inhibiting safety (¶ 0028). If y is below 0.10, crystal-structure stability diminishes, whereas if y is above 0.40, discharge capacity diminishes (¶ 0029). If z is below 0.01, the crystal-structure stability diminishes, whereas if z is above 0.20, discharge capacity diminishes (¶ 0030). Further, the skilled artisan would have necessarily had to account for W’s molar content to balance gas suppression with discharge capacity (as in ¶ 0062). To balance all these effects, then, it would have been obvious to arrive at a Ni molar ratio of ≥ 0.8 and, specifically, ≥ 0.88, as well as instant Chemical Formula 1, by routinely optimizing the metals’ contents (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding claim 9, modified Watanabe discloses or renders obvious the cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 8, wherein the lithium-nickel metal oxide further contains Co (Watanabe, ¶ 0026).
Regarding claim 10, modified Watanabe discloses the cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the active material particles further contain a doping element of Al (Watanabe, ¶ 0026; see all examples based on active material of Li1.03Ni0.77Co0.20Al0.03O2 in Watanabe’s Table 1).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. (JP 2010040383 A) in view of Komukai et al. (US 20180337403 A1), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Tamura et al. (JP 2019133881 A, with mach. translation).
Regarding claim 22, modified Watanabe discloses the cathode active material according to claim 1.
As seen above, Watanabe discloses that the coating is on the secondary particle’s outer surface, yet, in appearing unconcerned with the coating’s specific structure beyond that it should primarily exist on the secondary particle’s outer surface, Watanabe fails to explicitly disclose that the tungsten-containing coating on the outer surface of the secondary particle is distributed in a form of a plurality of islands spaced apart from each other.
Tamura teaches an analogous lithium metal oxide positive active material (¶ 0010) composed of aggregated secondary particles (¶ 0025). The core secondary particles are coated with W, Ti, or Zr in an island shape (¶ 0010) because, given that this coating is recognized to not contribute to (dis)charge, such allows reducing the amount of additives not contributing directly to (dis)charge, yielding high power output and good discharge capacity and cycle characteristics (¶ 0030).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form Watanabe’s coating as a plurality of spaced apart islands on the secondary particle’s outer surface with the reasonable expectation of reducing the amount of additives not contributing directly to (dis)charge to yield high power output and good discharge capacity and cycle characteristics, as taught by Tamura.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered. Applicant’s amendment overcame the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection—which, as noted above, has been withdrawn—and necessitated the new grounds of rejection citing the new reference(s) Komukai, as established above. Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s unexpected-results argument as follows:
Applicant argues that the claimed cathode material demonstrates superior DCIR, HPPC power, and capacity retention as well as reduced gas generation compared to the instant comparative example. However, Examiner respectfully submits that such does not compare against the closest prior art, Watanabe, and, thus, is an improper comparative example because Watanabe recognizes a W coating, whereas the comp. ex. omits the coating, so it appears that unexpected results would need to be demonstrated for another feature such as the W or C content (see MPEP 716.02(e)).
Here, it is unclear that either the W or C content is critical because the only comp. ex. merely tests below claim 1’s lower bound of W content but never includes comparative tests above this range isolating inferior performance to exceeding the range to demonstrate criticality across the range (see MPEP 716.02(d)). Such lack of criticality is corroborated by instant inventive Ex. 5, which includes W content at 5002 ppm (above claim 1’s range), where this example exhibited the lowest gas generation and highest capacity retention. Thus, this argument is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN S MEDLEY whose telephone number is (703)756-4600. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00–5:00 EST M–Th and 8:00–12:00 EST 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 571-270-192. 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.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 10/13/2026
Prosecution Insights