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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received January 16, 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.
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. 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 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 primary particles (Para. [0041]) (i.e. wherein M2 is Nb that is enriched at a crystallite surface of the primary 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 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).
Claims 3-5 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 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).
Regarding Claim 4, 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 said compound of M2 is selected from the group consisting of C1-C4 alkanolates.
However, Mendez et al. teaches coating a cathode active material with a half metal compound (pg. 27, lines 35-38) such as Zr(OC4H9)4 and Zr(OC2H5)4 (pg. 28, lines 18-19) (i.e. said compound of M2 is selected from the group consisting of C2 and C4 alkanolates).
The substitution of Zr(OC4H9)4 and Zr(OC2H5)4, as taught by Mendez et al., for the Zr compound of Cho et al. would achieve the predictable result of a cathode active material of a nickel-complex oxide capable of intercalating lithium with a coating covering the surface thereof (see Mendez et al. -- pg. 3, lines 1-7 and Cho et al. – Para. [0007]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to substitute Zr(OC4H9)4 and Zr(OC2H5)4, as taught by Mendez et al., for the Zr compound of Cho et al., as the substitution would achieve the predictable result of a cathode active material of a nickel-complex oxide capable of intercalating lithium with a coating covering the surface thereof (see Mendez et al. -- pg. 3, lines 1-7 and Cho et al. – Para. [0007]). The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Regarding Claim 5, 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 wherein M2 is selected from the group consisting of Nb and Ta.
However, Mendez et al. teaches coating a cathode active material with a transition metal oxide (pg. 25, lines 43-35) such as niobium oxide and tantalum oxide (pg. 26, lines 1-3) (i.e. wherein M2 is selected from the group consisting of Nb and Ta).
The combination of niobium oxide and tantalum oxide as taught by Mendez et al., with the coating compound as taught by Cho et al. would yield the predictable result of a cathode active material of a nickel-complex oxide capable of intercalating lithium with a coating covering the surface thereof (see Mendez et al. -- pg. 3, lines 1-7 and Cho et al. – Para. [0007]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to combine niobium oxide and tantalum oxide as taught by Mendez et al., with the coating compound as taught by Cho et al., as the combination would yield the predictable result of a cathode active material of a nickel-complex oxide capable of intercalating lithium with a coating covering the surface thereof (see Mendez et al. -- pg. 3, lines 1-7 and Cho et al. – Para. [0007]). The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
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 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]) (i.e. wherein M2 is Nb that is enriched at a crystallite surface of the primary 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 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 January 16, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues claim 9 is not indefinite because the claim term is properly defined.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. 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. 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. Thus, the argument is not persuasive and the rejection of record is maintained
Applicant argues ZrO2 is insoluble in ethanol and it would not be possible for one skilled in the art to determine whether the term solution is used correctly in the context of the precursor.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Cho recites a solution in which ZrO2 was dispersed in ethanol (Para. [0045]). Thus, a solution is explicitly taught. It is unclear how the ZrO2 being insoluble in ethanol or the vagueness of precursor demonstrates that a solution is not present. As a solution is explicitly taught by Cho, the argument is not persuasive.
With respect to the arguments regarding the 103 rejections, Applicant argues that the prior art used to render obvious the rejected claims (Mendez and Miyamoto) do not cure the deficiencies of the rejection applied to the independent claim (Cho). Applicant does not argue how the combination is not proper. Therefore, the Examiner maintains the obviousness rejections and upholds the rejection to the independent claim, as above.
Applicant argues that the dependent claims are distinct from the prior art of record for the same reason as the independent claim.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection with respect to the independent claim has been maintained, and thus the rejections to the dependent claims are maintained as well.
Applicant argues Miyamoto merely teaches attachment of Nb to the surfaces of secondary particles and does not teach 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 and otherwise uniformly distributed in such cathode active material.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim language is broader than Applicant is interpreting. 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. In this case, an attached matter containing niobium attached to the surfaces of the primary particles constituting the primary particles (Para. [0041], see lines 6-8) reads on niobium being enriched at a crystallite surface of the primary particles (i.e. wherein M2 is Nb that is enriched at a crystallite surface of the primary particles and otherwise uniformly distributed in such cathode active material). Thus, the argument is not persuasive and the rejection of record is maintained.
Regarding claim 14, the Office Action has been made non-final in light of the new grounds of rejection addressing claim 14 above.
Conclusion
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