DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received June 8, 2026:
Claims 1-14 are pending.
The previous 112 rejections are maintained.
The core of the previous rejection is maintained with slight changes made in light of the amendment in view of Harada et al. (US 2021/0083263). All changes to the rejection are necessitated by the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-14 are rejected 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.
Claims 1 and 9 recite “M2… is enriched at a crystallite surface of the primary particles and otherwise uniformly distributed in…active material.” Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. It is important to note that any special meaning assigned to a term "must be sufficiently clear in the specification that any departure from common usage would be so understood by a person of experience in the field of the invention." In this case, the term is not sufficiently clear in the specification such that it would by understood by a person of experience in the field of the invention as applicant is claiming a secondary particles that are agglomerates of primary particles, wherein M2 is enriched at a crystallite surface of the primary particles, wherein M2- is otherwise uniformly distributed in the electrode active material, wherein the specification defines otherwise uniformly distributed as M2 not enriched the outer surface of the secondary particles. The metes and bounds of the claim language cannot be ascertained because it is not sufficiently clear how the term meaning is M2 is not enriched at the outer surface of the secondary particles whilst the secondary particles are formed by agglomerates of primary particles wherein M2 is enriched at the crystallite surface of the primary particles. For example, is M2 is enriched at the crystallite surface of the primary particles and the primary particles are uniformly distributed in the electrode active material? Is M2 is enriched at the crystallite surface of the primary particles and the M2 is uniformly distributed within the primary particles aside from at the surface? See MPEP 2111.01(IV)(A). Claim 2-8 and 10-14 also rejected due to dependency on claim 1 and 9.
For purposes of examination “otherwise uniformly distributed” will be interpreted as agglomerates of primary particles containing enriched M2 at a crystallite surface forming the secondary particles.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (KR20200136347A) in view of Miyamoto et al. (US 2022/0259066).
Regarding Claim 1, Cho et al. teaches a method for manufacturing a positive electrode active material (i.e. a process for making an electrode active material) (Para. [0011]), wherein a nickel-excessive composite precursor having a composition of Ni0.6Co0.2Mn0.2(OH)2 (i.e. step (a), providing an (oxy)hydroxide of TM, wherein TM is a combination of metals, wherein TM contains Ni and Mn and Co), wherein the precursor is added to a solution in which ZrO2 was dispersed in ethanol (i.e. step (b), treating said (oxy)hydroxide from step (a) with a non-aqueous solution of a compound M2, wherein M2 is Zr), dried to produce a nickel-excessive composite precursor coated with Zr (i.e. step (c), removing one or more solvents thereby obtaining a solid residue) and then the nickel-excessive composite precursor coated with Zr is stirred with a lithium source (i.e. step (d), mixing the solid residue from step (c) with a source of lithium) and then heat-treated to produce a cathode active material doped with Zr on the particle surface (Para. [0045]) wherein the heat treatment is performed at 800 to 900 ºC (Para. [0015]) (i.e. step (e), treating the mixture obtained from step (d) thermally at a temperature in a range of from 550 to 900 ºC).
Cho et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the electrode active material comprises secondary particles that are agglomerates of primary particles; wherein M2 is enriched at a crystallite surface of the primary particles of secondary and otherwise uniformly distributed in such cathode active material.
However, Miyamoto et al. teaches a positive electrode active material contains secondary particles comprising an aggregate of a plurality of primary particles containing a lithium transition metal composite oxide (Para. [0008]) (i.e. wherein the electrode active material comprises secondary particles that are agglomerates of primary particles), the lithium transition metal composite oxide comprising nickel cobalt and magnesium (Para. [0038], [0040]) comprising an attached matter containing niobium attached to the surfaces of the primary particles constituting the secondary particles (Para. [0041], lines 6-8) (i.e. wherein M2 is Nb that is enriched at a crystallite surface of the primary particles forming the secondary particles) and the attached matter is uniformly attached (Para. [0026]) (i.e. and otherwise uniformly distributed in such cathode active material).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Cho et al. to incorporate the teaching of the electrode active material comprising secondary particles comprising an aggregate of a plurality of primary particles containing niobium on the surface as taught by Miyamoto et al., as such a material would provide reduced resistance components while good cycle characteristics are maintained (Para. [0042]).
Regarding Claim 2, Cho et al. as modified by Miyamoto et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Cho et al. further teaches the nickel-excessive composite precursor having a composition of Ni0.6Co0.2Mn0.2(OH)2 (i.e. wherein TM is a combination of metals according to the general formula of the instant claim, as a = 0.6, b = 0.2, c = 0.2, d is zero, b + c > zero and a+b+c=1).
Regarding Claim 6, Cho et al. as modified by Miyamoto et al teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Cho et al. further teaches the precursor is dried to produce a nickel-excessive composite precursor coated with Zr (Para. [0045]) (i.e. wherein step (c), is performed by evaporation of the one or move solvents).
Regarding Claim 7, Cho et al. as modified by Miyamoto et al teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Cho et al. further teaches the precursor is added to a solution in which ZrO2 was dispersed in ethanol (Para. [0045]) (i.e. wherein the solvent in step (c), is a C2 alkanol).
Regarding Claim 8, Cho et al. as modified by Miyamoto et al teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Cho et al. further teaches the Zr compound is preferably 1 wt% relative to the weight of the nickel-excessive complex transition metal precursor) (Para. [0037]) (i.e. wherein a molar ratio of M2 to TM is 1:100).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (KR20200136347A) in view of Miyamoto et al. (US 2022/0259066), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mendez et al. (WO2019/175035A).
Regarding Claim 3, Cho et al. as modified by Miyamoto et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Cho et al. does not teach the (oxyhydroxide) provided in step (a) has a moisture content in the range of from 50 to 2,000 ppm by weight.
However, Mendez et al. teaches a method of preparing a coated particulate cathode active material wherein the material comprise a residual moisture content in the range of from 50 to 1000 ppm (pg. 27, lines 10-26) (i.e. a moisture content within the claimed range).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the (oxy)hydroxide of Cho et al. to incorporate the teaching of the moisture content as taught by Mendez et al., as such a moisture content provides chemical properties such that non-coated parts of particles do not react during preparation (pg. 26, lines 36-39).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (KR20200136347A) in view of Miyamoto et al. (US 2022/0259066), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mendez et al. (WO2019/175035A).
Regarding Claim 4, Cho et al. as modified by Harada et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Cho et al. does not teach said compound of M2 is selected from the group consisting of C1-C4 alkanolates.
However, Harada et al. teaches a positive electrode active material (Para. [0056]) comprising an active material particle (primary particle) having the entire surface coated with a composite oxide-containing layer (Para. [0096]) wherein the layer is prepared by preparing a precursor solution comprising Nb(OC2H5)5 or Ta(OC2H5)5 (i.e. said compound of M2 is a C2 alkanolate) dissolved in ethanol (Para. [0065]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Cho et al. to incorporate the teaching of by treating a with Nb(OC2H5)5 or Ta(OC2H5)5 dissolved in ethanol as taught by Harada et al., as such treatment would provide suppression of the reaction between the electrolyte and active material (Para. [0098]), suppressing increase in resistance over a long period of time and maintained performance under high temperature conditions, excelling in high temperature storage performance (Para. [0028]).
Regarding Claim 5, Cho et al. as modified by Harada et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Cho et al. does not teach said compound of M2 is selected from the group consisting of Nb and Ta.
However, Harada et al. teaches a positive electrode active material (Para. [0056]) comprising an active material particle (primary particle) having the entire surface coated with a composite oxide-containing layer (Para. [0096]) wherein the layer is prepared by preparing a precursor solution comprising Nb(OC2H5)5 or Ta(OC2H5)5 (i.e. said compound of M2 is selected from the group consisting of Nb and Ta) dissolved in ethanol (Para. [0065]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Cho et al. to incorporate the teaching of by treating a with Nb(OC2H5)5 or Ta(OC2H5)5 dissolved in ethanol as taught by Harada et al., as such treatment would provide suppression of the reaction between the electrolyte and active material (Para. [0098]), suppressing increase in resistance over a long period of time and maintained performance under high temperature conditions, excelling in high temperature storage performance (Para. [0028]).
Claims 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mendez et al. (WO2019/175035A) in view of Miyamoto et al. (US 2022/0259066).
Regarding Claim 9, Mendez et al. teaches a particulate cathode active material comprising a lithium transition metal oxide (pg. 22, lines 38-39) having the general formula Li1+e[(Nia1Cob1Mnc1)-1-d1Md1]1-eO2 wherein Md may be Zr or Nb (i.e. M2 is selected from Zr and Nb), a1 is in the range of from 0.6 to 0.95, b1 is in the range of from 0.025 to 0.2, c1 is in the range of from 0.025 to 0.2, d1 is in the range of from zero to 0.1 and e is in the range of from zero to 0 (i.e. overlapping with the general formula claimed as TM contains Ni, Mn and Co, x is zero 0.2, and y (d1) is zero to 0.1, overlapping with the claimed range of y) (pg. 25, line 1-12) and the outer surface is coated with oxides such as zirconia and niobium oxide (pg. 25, line 43 – pg. 26, line 4) wherein the particles are composed of agglomerates from primary particles (pg. 27, lines 1-3) (i.e. comprising secondary particles that are agglomerates from primary particles). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Mendez et al. does not explicitly teach M2 is enriched at a crystallite surface of the primary particles forming the secondary particles and otherwise uniformly distributed in such cathode active material.
However, Miyamoto et al. teaches a lithium transition metal composite oxide comprising nickel cobalt and magnesium (Para. [0038], [0040]) comprising an attached matter containing niobium attached to the surfaces of the primary particles constituting the primary particles (Para. [0041], lines 6-8) (i.e. wherein M2 is Nb that is enriched at a crystallite surface of the primary particles forming the secondary particles and otherwise uniformly distributed in such cathode active material).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the primary particle crystallite surfaces of Mendez et al. to incorporate the teaching of niobium on the surface as taught by Miyamoto et al., as such a material would provide reduced resistance components while good cycle characteristics are maintained (Para. [0042]).
Regarding Claim 10, Mendez et al. as modified by Miyamoto et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 9 as explained above.
Mendez et al. further teaches the coating comprising zirconia and niobium oxide (pg. 25, line 43 – pg. 26, line 4) and a thickness of the coating may be in the range from 6 to 15 nm (i.e. a compound of M2 in the form of a layer with an average thickness from 2 to 30 nm) (pg. 26, lines 29-30 and pg. 27, lines 37-38).
Mendez et al. does not explicitly teach M2 is enriched at a crystallite surface of the primary particles.
However, Miyamoto et al. teaches a lithium transition metal composite oxide comprising nickel cobalt and magnesium (Para. [0038], [0040]) comprising an attached matter containing niobium attached to the surfaces of the primary particles constituting the primary particles (Para. [0041]) (i.e. wherein M2 is Nb that is enriched at a crystallite surface of the primary particles) and the attached matter is uniformly attached (Para. [0026]) (i.e. and otherwise uniformly distributed in such cathode active material).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the coating layer of Mendez et al. to incorporate the teaching of the layer on the surfaces of primary particles as taught by Miyamoto et al., as such a material would provide reduced resistance components while good cycle characteristics are maintained (Para. [0042]). Thus, a compound of M2 -enriched at the crystallite surface of the primary particles in the form of layer with an average thickness from 2 to 30 nm would be formed by Mendez et al. as modified by Miyamoto et al.
Regarding Claim 11, Mendez et al. as modified by Miyamoto et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 9 as explained above.
Mendez et al. further teaches the coating comprising zirconia and niobium oxide (pg. 25, line 43 – pg. 26, line 4) (i.e. M2 is selected from Nb).
Regarding Claim 12, Mendez et al. as modified by Miyamoto et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 9 as explained above.
Mendez et al. further teaches the particulate cathode active material comprising a lithium transition metal oxide (pg. 22, lines 38-39) having the general formula Li1+e[(Nia1Cob1Mnc1)-1-d1Md1]1-eO2 wherein Md may be Al, Mg, and Ti (i.e. M1 is at least one of Al, Mg and Ti), a1 is in the range of from 0.6 to 0.95, b1 is in the range of from 0.025 to 0.2, c1 is in the range of from 0.025 to 0.2, d1 is in the range of from zero to 0.1 and e may be zero to 0.2 (pg. 25, line 1-12) (i.e. wherein TM is combination of metals according to general formula (I) of the instant claim 12).
Regarding Claim 13, Mendez et al. as modified by Miyamoto et al. teaches all of the elements of the particulate cathode active material in claim 9 as explained above.
Mendez et al. further teaches a cathode which comprises a binder (i.e. a binder material), electrically conductive material such as electrically conductive carbon (i.e. carbon in electrically conductive form) (pg. 31, lines 35-36) and the particulate cathode active material (according to claim 9) (pg. 22, lines 38-39).
Regarding Claim 14, Mendez et al. as modified by Miyamoto et al. teaches all of the elements of the at least one cathode in claim 13 as explained above.
Mendez et al. further teaches an electrochemical cell comprising a battery (pg. 21, lines 11-14) comprising at least a cathode, an anode and at least one electrolyte (pg. 21, lines 23-26).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 8, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues ZrO--2 is insoluble in ethanol and the machine translation appears to describe a coating solution wherein the term solution is incorrectly applied and since the term “precursor” in Cho is vague it cannot be determined whether the term solution is applied correctly in the context of the precursor or not.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. It appears as though the claim language is broader than Applicant is interpreting. The claim is directed towards a non-aqueous or aqueous solution of a compound M2 as claimed. Regarding the claimed term “solution”, the term is defined as “a homogenous mixture formed by mixing one solid, liquid, or gaseous substance with another” and “a bringing or coming to an end or into a state of discontinuity: such as dispersion” (see Merriam-Webster definitions 1 and 3. Thus, the teaching ZrO2- -dispersed in ethanol (Para. [0045]) reads on a “non-aqueous solution. Regarding the term solvent, the term is defined as “ a usually liquid substance capable of dissolving or dispersing one or more other substances” (see Merriam-Webster definition 2 of 2, 1). Office personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Also, limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are not read into the claim. See In re Zletz, 893F.2d 319, 321-22,13 USPQ2d, 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). See also MPEP 2111. Thus, in the teaching ZrO2- -dispersed in ethanol (Para. [0045]), ethanol reads on a solvent. Para. [0017] is not cited in rejection of record and thus, the argument is not commensurate in scope with the rejection of record. Para. [0045] explicitly teaches the nickel-excessive composite precursor is coated on its surface by the ZrO2 nanoparticle.
Applicant argues as Cho teaches a Zr concentration gradient which is distinct from the present claims, Cho is deficient.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. It appears as though Applicant’s argument is directed towards the limitation of the M2 being enriched at a crystallite surface of the primary particle of the secondary particles. Cho is not relied upon for rendering obvious this limitation. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant agues Miyamoto does not cure the deficiencies of Cho and Mendez because the teaching of Para. [0041] is not equivalent to the claimed distributions, as Para. [0041] is silent regarding the two spatial requirements “enriched” and “otherwise uniformly distributed” having different proportions of M2, Miyamoto merely teaches the niobium may be present somewhere in the particles with only a total amount leading to the benefits.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Miyamoto et al. explicitly teaches an attached matter containing niobium attached to the surfaces of the primary particles constituting the primary particles (Para. [0041], lines 6-8) (i.e. wherein M2 is Nb that is enriched at a crystallite surface of the primary particles of the secondary particles and otherwise uniformly distributed in such cathode active material). Applicant has not explained how the material taught in Miyamoto is different from “otherwise uniformly distributed” or how “otherwise uniformly distributed” comprises a “spatial requirement”. Is M2 otherwise uniformly distributed in the primary particles? Does otherwise uniformly distributed mean the primary particles are uniformly distributed? For purposes of examination “otherwise uniformly distributed” was interpreted as agglomerates of primary particles containing enriched M2 at a crystallite surface forming the secondary particles and thus, the Miyamoto reference reads on the claimed invention. Furthermore, Miyamoto et al. teaches the attached matter is uniformly attached (Para. [0026]) (i.e. and otherwise uniformly distributed in such cathode active material). Office personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Also, limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are not read into the claim. See In re Zletz, 893F.2d 319, 321-22,13 USPQ2d, 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). See also MPEP 2111.Para. [0042] of Miyamoto teaches that incorporating the feature of M2 enriched at a crystallite surface of the primary particle would provide the cited benefits. Miyamoto et al. further teaches the niobium attached to the surfaces of the primary particles constituting the primary particles (Para. [0041], lines 6-8) (i.e. where they are located) by mixing a niobium compound solution or dispersion (Para. [0043]) (i.e. how they are introduced). The claim does not require a location of M2 in the particle of composite hydroxide of nickel and cobalt, but rather on crystallite surface of the primary particles forming the secondary particles in the electrode active material.
Applicant argues the Mendez coating solution is added to the cathode active material rather than to its precursor without the lithium and precursor in Mendez refers to Zr(OCH4H9)4 and accordingly, it would not have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine without impermissible hindsight and is unrelated to Miyamoto.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is unclear how Mendez and Miyamoto Cho are unrelated as they both teach positive electrode active material (Mendez – pg. 27, lines 35-38 and Miyamoto – Para. [0008]) or how this precludes the combination of Mendez with Cho. Furthermore, there is a reasonable expectation of success in incorporating the moisture content as taught by Mendez with the method as taught by Cho and incorporating such a moisture content provides chemical properties such that non-coated parts of particles do not react during preparation (pg. 26, lines 36-39). In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). As the current rejection of record takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not rely upon knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, no improper hindsight reasoning was used.
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 ARMINDO CARVALHO JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-5292. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30a.m.-5p.m..
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571 272-1481. 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.
/ARMINDO CARVALHO JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights