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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 04/14/2026 and 06/15/2026 have been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Examiner notes the following amendments made to the claims:
Claim 1 amended to incorporate the subject matter of previously presented claim 2
Claim 2 cancelled
New claims 7-9 added
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, examiner finds that the composite oxide taught by Kim (US 20140193714 A1) would still meet all of the limitations of amended claim 1. Examiner finds that the cathode active material of Kim comprises the same formula as that of the instant claims, including a first and second composite oxide having different proportions of lithium and nickel. Since the compositions of the two materials are similar or identical to those provided in the instant application, it is highly likely that the structures contain similar space groups, even if not specifically mentioned by Kim. As described in the original rejection, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the oxygen content of the first composite oxide to have an LiMO2 type stoichiometry, thus meeting all of the limitations of claim 1. While instant specification teaches the process of immersing the composite oxide in a benzophenone-2-MeTHF solution as a possible method of producing this material (“The lithium-metal composite oxide (Y) included in the positive electrode active material may be produced by, for example: immersing a lithium-metal composite oxide
(X) having the space group R3-m and Li metal in a benzophenone-2- methyltetrahydrofuran (2-MeTHF)” Instant spec [0030]), it also teaches that the (1-x) portion of the coefficient in the second composite oxide represents the space group P3-m1 (“In the general formula xLiyNizMi-zO2-(1-x)LiwNizMi-z02, which represents the lithium-metal composite oxide (Y), x and (1-x) represent rates of the region of the space group P3-ml and the region of the space group R3-m, respectively. x satisfies 0.1 < x < 1, and preferably 0.1 < x < 0.4.” Instant spec [0026]), which would therefore infer that a composite oxide having the same chemical formula and coefficients would inherently possess the same space groups. Since the structure of Kim meets the limitations, examiner maintains the position that the composite oxide of Kim would inherently possess the same space groups. Thus, the original rejection is maintained and remains unchanged other than to account for the amendments made to the claims. If applicant were to amend the claims to require the presence of benzophenone-2-MeTHF in the production of the lithium composite oxide material, this would potentially overcome the rejection and require further search and consideration.
Regarding new claims 7-9, these are rejected in view of either Kim further in view of Inoue (US 20100143801 A1).
Regarding the nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claims 1-6, examiner notes the filing of an eTerminal disclaimer over the copending application. Thus, the nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claims 1-6 is withdrawn.
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, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20140193714 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches the following elements:
A positive electrode active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery, including a lithium-metal composite oxide represented by the general formula xLi-yNizM1-zO2-(1-x)LiwNizM1-zO2, wherein 0.1 < x ≤ 1 , 1.5 ≤ y ≤ 2.5, 0.4 < z <0.9 ,0.9 ≤ w < 1.5, and M represents one or more elements selected from the group consisting of transition metals and Al, Si, Sn, Ge, Sb, Bi, Mg, Ca, and Sr, (Kim abstract teaches a composite oxide for a cathode active material that teaches all of the limitations required by claim 1. Specifically, it teaches a layered oxide with a lithium rich domain and a lower lithium containing domain, comprising nickel in both domains and a dopant M2 that is explicitly present in the first domain and can be present in the second as well. Kim also teaches, in comparative examples 1-3 on page 9, three examples in which the first and second lithium domains are both doped by a metal, in this case, aluminum. This creates a case of obviousness where the dopant used to dope the lithium-rich domain would also be obvious to dope the second domain. Additionally, Kim states that Me includes “at least” one metal selected, and therefore it is possible for Me to contain both Ni and Al, thus meeting all of the limitations of claim 1.)
PNG
media_image1.png
254
292
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 1
Kim Formula 1
xLi-yNizM1-zO2-(1-x)LiwNizM1-zO2,
Subscript range
x[Li2-yM11-zM2y+zO3]-(1-x)[LiMeO2]
Subscript range
Li
0.1 < x ≤ 1, 1.5 ≤ y ≤ 2.5
Li
0 < x < 10 ≤ y <10 < y+z < 1
Ni
0.4 < z <0.9, 0.9 ≤ w < 1.5
M1 (any transition metal)
0 ≤ z < 10 < y+z < 1
M1 (Al, Si, Sn, Ge, Sb, Bi, Mg, Ca, and Sr)
0.4 < z <0.9, 0.9 ≤ w < 1.5
M2 (Mg, Al, V, Zn, Mo, Nb, La, Ru)
0 < y+z < 1
O
2
O
3, 2
Me (Ni, Co, Mn, Fe, Cr, Ti, Cu, Al, Mg, Zr, B)
1
wherein the lithium-metal composite oxide has a layered structure, and has a Li element coordinated at a tetrahedral position of oxygen. (By forming a layered structure with the same elemental composition and domains as that taught by Kim, shown above, the coordination of Li within the structure would be an inherent property of the material. See MPEP 2112. II. or Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., for case law regarding the fact that an inherent feature need not be recognized at the relevant time in order for it to still anticipate the feature, which is later recognized).
As can be seen in the above table, the only part of the compositions of Kim versus the instant claims that don’t overlap is that the lithium-rich domain of Kim has O3 versus, O2 in the instant claims. However, a person skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would understand that a Li2M’O3 domain is a lithium-excess derivative of a layered LiMO2 structure, sharing the same oxygen close-packed framework—by reducing lithium content, which would be within the realm of routine experimentation, the composition would transition toward a LiMO2 type stoichiometry. Therefore, it would be an obvious modification to change the Li content in the composition of Kim and come to the composition found in the instant claims.
wherein the lithium-metal composite oxide mainly has a space group R3-m, and has a region of a space group P3-ml as a stacking fault. (The space group/lattice structure of the lithium-metal composite oxide would be an inherent property of the material. Therefore, by meeting the above limitations of claim 1, the material of Kim modified to have O2 in the lithium-rich domain rather than O3, would have the same exact crystal structure as that in the instant claims and would therefore contain the same space groups even if it was not explicitly stated in the prior art. See MPEP 2112. II. or Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., for case law regarding the fact that an inherent feature need not be recognized at the relevant time in order for it to still anticipate the feature, which is later recognized.)
Regarding claim 3, Kim teaches all of the following elements:
The positive electrode active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the M represents one or more elements selected from the group consisting of Ni, Co, Mn, Fe, and Al. (As shown above in claim 1, the M in the composition of Kim can comprise every single one of these elements in both domains, as in the lithium rich domain it can be any transition metal, and in the lithium poor domain it can be Ni, Co, Mn, Fe, Cr, Ti, Cu, Al, Mg, Zr, or B.)
Regarding claim 4, Kim teaches all of the following elements:
A non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery, comprising (“The present disclosure relates to a cathode active material, a cathode including the cathode active material, a lithium battery including the cathode active material,” Kim [0003] and “The material capable of reversibly inserting and deintercalating lithium ions may be a carbonaceous material, i.e., any carbon-based anode active material that is suitable for a lithium ion secondary battery.” Kim [0108])
a positive electrode including the positive electrode active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 1; (“The present disclosure relates to a cathode active material, a cathode including the cathode active material, a lithium battery including the cathode active material,” Kim [0003]. See claim 1 for comparison of Kim cathode active material to instant claim 1.)
a negative electrode; (“According to another aspect, a lithium battery includes a cathode; an anode; and an electrolyte disposed between the cathode and the anode; wherein the cathode includes the above described cathode active material.” Kim [0026])
and a non-aqueous electrolyte, (“The electrolyte may be an organic electrolyte solution. Alternatively, the electrolyte may be a solid. Examples of the solid electrolyte include boron oxide and lithium oxynitride, but are not limited thereto. The solid electrolyte may be any suitable solid electrolyte used in the art. The solid electrolyte may be formed on the anode by, for example, sputtering.” Kim [0116])
wherein the negative electrode includes a negative electrode active material, (“Next, an anode is manufactured in the same manner as the cathode described above, except that an anode active material is used instead of the cathode active material.” Kim [0103])
and the negative electrode active material contains greater than or equal to 3% of one or a mixture of two or more selected from the group consisting of Si, SiC, SiOα where 0 < α < 2,LiβSiOy where 1 < β ≤ 4 and 1 < y ≤ 4, Sn, SnO2, Sb, and Ge. (“Examples of the anode active materials include lithium metal, a metal material capable of alloying with lithium, a transition metal oxide, a material capable of doping and de-doping, e.g., alloying and de-alloying, lithium, a material capable of reversibly inserting and deintercalating lithium ions, or the like.” Kim [0105] and “Examples of the transition metal oxide include vanadium oxide, lithium-vanadium oxide, or the like, and examples of the material capable of doping and de-doping lithium include at least one selected from Si, SiO.sub.x (where 0<x<2), Si--Y alloy (where Y is an alkali metal, an alkali earth metal, an element of Groups 13 to 16, a transition metal, a rare earth element, or a combination thereof, except Si), Sn, SnO.sub.2,” Kim [0107] and “Examples of the metal material capable of alloying with lithium include at least one selected from Si, Sn, Al, Ge, Pb, Bi, Sb, Si--Y alloy” Kim [0106]. While not explicitly stated in Kim, it would be obvious to include one or more of the possible anode active materials in a quantity of 3% or more, given the wording states that the possible anode active materials “include” the above listed ones, implying that they could be chosen to be the entirety of the anode active material.)
Regarding claim 6, Kim teaches all of the following elements:
The non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 4, wherein in a discharged state until 1.5 V, the lithium-metal composite oxide has a composition represented by the general formula xLiyNizM1-zO2-(1-x)LiwNizM1-zO2 wherein 0.1 < x ≤ 1, 1.5 ≤ y ≤ 2.5, 0.4 < z ≤ 0.9, 0.9 ≤ w ≤ 1.5, and M is the above M. (The composition provided in claim 6 is the exact same as that provided in claim 1. Thus, the lithium-metal composite oxide of Kim would meet this limitation as well. See claim 1 above for the comparison between Kim and the instant invention.)
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20140193714 A1) with evidentiary support from Lin et al (Xianke Lin, Kavian Khosravinia, Xiaosong Hu, Ju Li, Wei Lu, Lithium Plating Mechanism, Detection, and Mitigation in Lithium-Ion Batteries, Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, Volume 87, 2021, 100953)
Regarding claim 5, Kim teaches all of the following elements:
The non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 4, wherein in a charged state, lithium metal precipitates on the negative electrode. (Given that Kim teaches a positive and negative electrode that are analogous to those of the instantly claimed invention, if it were formed in the same manner then lithium metal would precipitate. The instant specification specifically states that “To prevent precipitation of lithium, the negative electrode 12 is formed to be one size larger than the positive electrode 11.” Instant spec [0014]. This implies that if the negative electrode is not larger than the positive electrode, yet the positive and negative electrode active materials remain the same, lithium metal would precipitate on the negative electrode. It is known in the art that lithium plating/precipitation can occur when lithium ions cannot intercalate fast enough, (See Lin et al, 2021). In this case, the cathode active material of Kim and the instant invention is very rich in lithium, and therefore if no measures are taken to minimize the precipitation of lithium metal, it would occur at least to some extent.)
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20140193714 A1) in view of Inoue (US 20100143801 A1)
Regarding claim 7, Kim is silent on the following elements:
The positive electrode active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the lithium-metal composite oxide is of secondary particles formed by aggregation of a plurality of primary particles.
However, Inoue teaches all of the elements of claim 7 that are not found in Kim:
The positive electrode active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the lithium-metal composite oxide is of secondary particles formed by aggregation of a plurality of primary particles. (“the lithium metal composite oxide particles comprise a plurality of secondary particles in an elongated shape each comprised of a plurality of primary particles with an average particle size of 0.1 to 1 .mu.m so aggregated as to form a void therebetween; and the secondary particle is columnar or planar and has an average size in a long length direction of 5 to 15 .mu.m.” Inoue abstract).
Inoue and Kim are considered to be analogous because they are both within the same field of lithium secondary batteries containing layered composite oxides with differing lithium contents. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the positive electrode active material of Kim to be in particulate form, having secondary particles formed by the aggregation of primary particles, in order to increase performance, as taught by Inoue (“Under these circumstances, in particular in relating to the lithium metal oxide used as a positive electrode active material of a lithium secondary battery, early provision of a lithium metal oxide that has more excellent performance including the shape of the particle is desired strongly.” Inoue [0010])
By modifying Kim to include the particle type and size of Inoue in order to achieve performance enhancements, as described above regarding claim 7, the additional limitations of claims 8 and 9 would be met without requiring any further modification or motivation.
Regarding claim 8, Kim is silent on the following elements:
The positive electrode active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 7, wherein a particle diameter of the primary particles is greater than or equal to 0.05 µm and less than or equal to 1 µm.
However, Inoue teaches all of the elements of claim 8 that are not found in Kim:
The positive electrode active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 7, wherein a particle diameter of the primary particles is greater than or equal to 0.05 µm and less than or equal to 1 µm. (“the lithium metal composite oxide particles comprise a plurality of secondary particles in an elongated shape each comprised of a plurality of primary particles with an average particle size of 0.1 to 1 .mu.m so aggregated as to form a void therebetween; and the secondary particle is columnar or planar and has an average size in a long length direction of 5 to 15 .mu.m.” Inoue abstract. The size range of primary particles taught by Inoue anticipates the claimed range.)
Regarding claim 9, Kim is silent on the following elements:
The positive electrode active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 7, wherein a particle diameter of the secondary particles is greater than or equal to 3 µm and less than or equal to 30 µm.
However, Inoue teaches all of the elements of claim 9 that are not found in Kim:
The positive electrode active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 7, wherein a particle diameter of the secondary particles is greater than or equal to 3 pm and less than or equal to 30 pm. (“the lithium metal composite oxide particles comprise a plurality of secondary particles in an elongated shape each comprised of a plurality of primary particles with an average particle size of 0.1 to 1 .mu.m so aggregated as to form a void therebetween; and the secondary particle is columnar or planar and has an average size in a long length direction of 5 to 15 .mu.m.” Inoue abstract. The size range of secondary particles taught by Inoue anticipates the claimed range.)
Conclusion
After an updated search, the following references were considered to be relevant but not used in rejection since rejection remains unchanged:
Senoue (US 20120164533 A1) –teaches a positive electrode active material that teaches all of the limitations of claims 1-4, 6.
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 BENJAMIN ELI KASS-MULLET whose telephone number is (571)272-0156. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-6pm except for the first Friday of bi-week.
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, NICHOLAS SMITH can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/BENJAMIN ELI KASS-MULLET/Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/OLATUNJI A GODO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights