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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment and arguments, filed 03/04/26, have been fully considered. Claim(s) 1 is/are amended; claim(s) 2–6 and 8–12 stand(s) as originally or previously presented; and claim(s) 7 and 13–18 is/are canceled; no new matter has been added. Examiner affirms that the original disclosure provides adequate support for the amendment.
Upon considering said amendment and arguments, the previous 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection set forth in the Office Action mailed 12/04/25 has/have been withdrawn. Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection below.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1–6 and 8–12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. (JP 2010040383 A) (Watanabe), taken alone or in view of Maekawa et al. (WO 2020213617 A1; citation to English equivalent US 20220216470 A1, each from 12/04/25 PTO-892) (Maekawa).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, 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 on at least a portion of the active material particles (surface layer with tungstic acid or tungstate compound, e.g., ¶ 0020 and exs.), and an amount of tungsten present on an outer surface of the secondary particle is greater than an amount of tungsten between the primary particles in an inner region of the secondary particle (as the surface layer would exist on the secondary particle (as implied from ¶ 0020 and 0040) and there is no indication that the coating exists in the interior primary particles, the W present on the outside of the secondary particle would reasonably be greater than the W between primary particles in the interior).
Assuming, arguendo, that Watanabe’s disclosure failed to necessarily satisfy this feature, Maekawa teaches lithium metal oxide secondary particles coated with tungsten to stabilize the active material’s crystal structure and improve capacity (Abstract, ¶ 0012), where more W may be present on a given secondary particle’s surface than inside between the primary particles (¶ 0027).
Watanabe and Maekawa are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely W-coated positive active material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to coat more W on the surface of Watanabe’s secondary particle than inside between the primary particles with the reasonable expectation of producing a successful coating and stabilizing the active material’s crystal structure, as suggested by Maekawa.
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
This range significantly overlaps the instant 100–5000 ppm such that the skilled artisan could have routinely selected within the 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 range 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 discussed 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 range by routinely optimizing the C content (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding claim 2, Watanabe discloses the cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1.
As discussed above, Watanabe discloses a content of W, even if not explicitly measured by ICP, of 954~15906 ppm, which significantly overlaps 200–5000 ppm such that the skilled artisan could have routinely selected within the overlap with a reasonable expectation of forming a successful active material with sufficient W coating (MPEP 2144.05 (I)). Moreover, as further discussed, the skilled artisan would have routinely reached the instant range by balancing W’s coating benefits of gas suppression with proper capacity (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding claim 3, Watanabe discloses the cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1.
As discussed 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, Watanabe’s ≤ 100 ppm overlaps this range so significantly as to provide sufficient specificity to fall within 10–300 ppm (see MPEP 2131.01 (II)).
Arguendo, if Applicant can convincingly show that ≤ 100 ppm is not sufficiently specific to read on 10–300 ppm, as discussed above, the skilled artisan would have routinely arrived at the instant range by minimizing the C content to reduce gas generation (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Watanabe discloses the cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1.
As discussed 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) and 4–65 (claim 5) such that the skilled artisan could have routinely selected within the 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 claim 6, Watanabe discloses the cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1.
Watanabe further exemplifies lithium tungstate—i.e., lithium tungsten oxide—as the tungsten coating (¶ 0043; see also Ex. 3, ¶ 0135) though fails to embody such in the general disclosure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to routinely select lithium tungsten oxide as Watanabe’s W coating with the reasonable expectation of achieving a successful coating (MPEP 2144.07, 2143 (A.)).
Regarding claims 8 and 11, 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 of ≥ 0.8 (claim 8), as well as a structure represented by Chemical Formula 1 (claim 11).
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, as well as instant Chemical Formula 1, by routinely optimizing the metals’ contents (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding claim 9, 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 (¶ 0026).
Regarding claim 10, 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 (¶ 0026; see all examples based on active material of Li1.03Ni0.77Co0.20Al0.03O2 in Table 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 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.
Nonetheless, to promote compact prosecution, Applicant’s results stemming from coating more tungsten on the exterior of the secondary particle than within the particle appear unable to overcome the case of obviousness over Watanabe because Watanabe’s W already satisfies this feature and, thus, would not be vulnerable to unexpected results based on this effect (see also MPEP 716.02(e)). Alternatively, Maekawa teaches that such is well known in the art. Moreover, such effects of reducing gas generation would be expected from Watanabe’s ¶ 0020, 0024, and 0062.
Conclusion
The cited art made of record but not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
US 20200350555 A1: tungstate coating atop lithium metal oxide secondary particles with similar goal of reducing residual surface carbonate content to suppress gas generation, though the W and C contents are not explicitly measured via ICP and CS, respectively.
US 20170207453 A1: similar to Watanabe.
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 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 4/26/2026
Prosecution Insights