DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the August 3rd, 2026 arguments and remarks (“Remarks”).
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 Amendments
In response to the amendments received in the Remarks on August 3rd, 2026:
Claims 1-2 and 4-10 are pending in the current application. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 6-10 are newly added. Claim 3 has been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed with the Remarks on August 3rd, 2026 with respect to Claims 1-2 and 4-10 are acknowledged, however, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments that the inactive flux of Shimano would not result in the claimed A-B-O compound being adhered to interfaces between primary particles located inside the secondary particles is not persuasive.
Specifically, Applicant argues that the calcination of Shimano is carried out at a temperature below the melting point of CaWO4 and therefore, the inactive flux would not reach the interfaces between the primary particles. This argument is not persuasive. While CaWO4 may have a melting point that exceeds the preferred calcination temperature of Shimano, Shimano explicitly states that “the calcining temperature is different depending on the kind of the transition metal element to be used, the kind of the precipitant and the kind of the inactive flux.” ([0171]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to, within the teaching of Shimano, adjust the calcining temperature to suit the melting properties of CaWO4. Additionally, Shimano discloses wherein two or more inactive fluxes may be used in conjunction in order to lower the melting point. This would include a combination of any of the two or more disclosed possible inactive fluxes. Applicant solely points out two of the possible combinations disclosed (sodium carbonate and potassium carbonate). And, while yes it may be possible for the multiple of inactive fluxes included to have reactions to form additional materials, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it does not mean that all of the CaWO4 would react and be converted into a different material. And, that therefore, even in the instance where CaWO4 is combined with at least one other inactive flux that would cause a side reaction, it would still be reasonable to expect at least some of the CaWO4 to not participate in the side reaction.
Further, Applicant argues that Shimano fails to include any specific examples in which CaWO4 is used as the inactive flux. This argument is not persuasive. It is not required for Shimano to disclose a specific example using the inactive flux of CaWO4 for this compound to read on the instantly claimed A-B-O compound. Shimano discloses wherein the inactive flux is selected from a group including CaWO4, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to try each and every disclosed inactive flux – including the CaWO4 inactive flux that reads on the instantly claimed A-B-O compound.
Additionally, Applicant argues that the CaWO4 of Shimano would partially adhere to the surface of the secondary particles of the positive electrode active material and not the interfaces between the primary particles located at least inside the secondary particles, as claimed. This argument is not persuasive. Shimano explicitly states that “the residue of the inactive flux may remain in the lithium mixed metal oxide after the calcination” ([0073]). There is no way for the inactive flux to be present within the lithium mixed metal oxide secondary particle without also being located along the interfaces between the primary particles located at least inside the secondary particles.
Therefore, applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection of record is maintained. Any modification to the rejection is as necessitated by the amendment.
Prior Art
Previously cited Shimano US PG Publication 2012/0244413 (“Shimano”)
Previously cited Leng US PG Publication 2021/0167366 (“Leng”)
Zheng US PG Publication 2019/0252687 (“Zhang”)
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.
Claims 6-7 and 9-10 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.
Claim 6 claims a compound (line 2) that is adhered to the interfaces between the primary particles (lines 3-4). It is wholly unclear whether this compound is in reference to the compound represented by AxByOz as claimed in lines 11-12, from which Claim 6 depends.
Claim 7 claims a compound (line 2) that is adhered to the interfaces between the primary particles (lines 3-4). It is wholly unclear whether this compound is in reference to the compound represented by AxByOz as claimed in lines 11-12, from which Claim 7 depends.
For purposes of examination, the compound as recited in line 2 of Claim 6 and line 2 of Claim 7 is interpreted to be the same as the compound as defined in lines 11-12 of Claim 1.
Claims 9-10 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Further clarification is required.
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, 4-6, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimano US PG Publication 2012/0244413 in view of Leng US PG Publication 2021/0167366.
Regarding Claim 1, Shimano discloses a positive electrode active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery (Abstract, entire disclosure dependent upon), the positive electrode active material comprising:
a lithium-transition metal composite oxide Lia(Ni1-(x+y)MnxCOy)O2 having a layered structure and containing Ni (in the instance where M is Ni) ([0-011]-[0022],
wherein the lithium-transition metal composite oxide comprises secondary particles that are aggregates of primary particles ([0027], [0089]), and wherein the lithium-transition metal composite oxide has a compound selected from a group including CaWO4 (which meets the claim limitation of AxByOz in the instance where A is Ca, B is W, x is 1, y is 11, and z is 4) adhered to interfaces between the primary particles located at least inside the secondary particles ([0011]-[0013], [0065]-[0066], [0073]).
Shimano fails to explicitly disclose wherein the lithium-transition metal composite oxide contains Ni in an amount of 75 mol% or more relative to the total molar amount of elements excluding Li and O1.
However, Leng discloses a positive electrode sheet for a secondary battery comprising a lithium transition metal oxide ([0007], entire disclosure dependent upon).
Leng teaches that lithium transition metal oxides having a higher content of nickel, such as at least 80 mol% relative to the other transition metals, such that the lithium transition metal oxide may be defined as LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 and may effectively improve energy density of a battery ([0041], [0091], Table 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the positive electrode active material of Shimano such that the lithium-transition metal composite oxide contains Ni in an amount of 80 mol% or more (which falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of 75 mol% or more) relative to the total molar amount of elements excluding Li and O and may be defined as LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 in order to effectively improve energy density of the battery, as taught by Leng.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Shimano in view of Leng discloses wherein the lithium-transition metal composite oxide LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 contains an element M that is Co and Mn (which meets the claim limitation of at least one selected from Mn, Al, Co, Fe, Ti, Si, Nb, Mo, W, and Zr), and
wherein the content of the element M is 10 mol% (which falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of greater than or equal to 5 mol% and less than or equal to 25 mol%) relative to the total molar amount of elements excluding Li and O (Leng [0091], Table 1).
1 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, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Regarding Claim 2, Shimano in view of Leng teaches the instantly claimed positive electrode active material according to Claim 1, and Shimano discloses wherein the compound CaWO4 is present in an amount of 1 part by weight or more per 100 parts by weight of the lithium transition metal composite oxide ([0069]).
The skilled artisan would recognize that with a molecular mass of 287.918 g/mol for CaWO4 and 97.2825 g/mol for LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2, 1 part by weight CaWO4 to every 100 parts by weight of LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 would result in 0.003 mol CaWO4 for every 1.028 mol LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2. And, therefore, Shimano in view of Leng discloses wherein the content of element A (wherein A is Ca) in the compound CaWO4 is at least 0.29 mol% (which overlaps the claimed range of 3 mol% or less)2 relative to the total molar amount of elements excluding Li and O in the lithium transition metal composite oxide and the compound.
2 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).
Regarding Claim 4, Shimano in view of Leng teaches the instantly claimed positive electrode active material according to Claim 1, and Shimano discloses wherein the lithium-transition metal composite oxide has a BET specific surface area of 3 m2/g to 15 m2/g (which overlaps the claimed range of greater than or equal to 0.5 m2/g and less than or equal to 3.5 m2/g)2 ([0026]).
Regarding Claim 5, Shimano discloses a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery ([0011]) comprising: a positive electrode containing the positive electrode active material of Shimano in view of Leng as described in the rejection of Claim 1 above ([0011], [0101]); a negative electrode ([0101]); and a non-aqueous electrolyte ([0101]).
Regarding Claim 6, Shimano in view of Leng teaches the instantly claimed positive electrode active material according to Claim 1, and (as previously described in the rejection of Claim 1) Shimano discloses wherein CaWO4 is adhered to the interfaces between the primary particles (which meets the claim limitation of at least one selected from CaWO4, CaMoO3, Ca2TiO4, CaZrO3, SrMoO3, and Sr2TiO4) ([0011]-[0013], [0065]-[0066], [0073]).
Regarding Claim 8, Shimano in view of Leng teaches the instantly claimed positive electrode active material according to Claim 2, and Shimano discloses wherein the compound CaWO4 is present in an amount of 1 part by weight or more per 100 parts by weight of the lithium transition metal composite oxide ([0069]).
The skilled artisan would recognize that with a molecular mass of 287.918 g/mol for CaWO4 and 97.2825 g/mol for LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2, 1 part by weight CaWO4 to every 100 parts by weight of LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 would result in 0.003 mol CaWO4 for every 1.028 mol LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2. And, therefore, Shimano in view of Leng discloses wherein the content of element A (wherein A is Ca) in the compound CaWO4 is at least 0.29 mol% (which overlaps the claimed range of greater than or equal to 0.1 mol% and less than or equal to 3 mol%)2 relative to the total molar amount of elements excluding Li and O in the lithium transition metal composite oxide and the compound.
2 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).
Regarding Claim 9, Shimano in view of Leng teaches the instantly claimed positive electrode active material according to Claim 6, and Shimano discloses wherein the compound CaWO4 is present in an amount of 1 part by weight or more per 100 parts by weight of the lithium transition metal composite oxide ([0069]).
The skilled artisan would recognize that with a molecular mass of 287.918 g/mol for CaWO4 and 97.2825 g/mol for LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2, 1 part by weight CaWO4 to every 100 parts by weight of LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 would result in 0.003 mol CaWO4 for every 1.028 mol LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2. And, therefore, Shimano in view of Leng discloses wherein the total content of Ca in the compound CaWO4 is at least 0.29 mol% and Sr is present in the amount of 0 mol% (which overlaps the claimed range of greater than or equal to 0.1 mol% and less than or equal to 3 mol%)2 relative to the total molar amount of elements excluding Li and O in the lithium transition metal composite oxide and the compound.
2 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).
Claims 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimano US PG Publication 2012/0244413 in view of Leng US PG Publication 2021/0167366, as applied to Claim 1, further in view of Zheng US PG Publication 2019/0252687.
Regarding Claim 7, Shimano in view of Leng teaches the instantly claimed positive electrode active material according to Claim 1. Shimano in view of Leng fails to disclose wherein the compound is at least one selected from CaMoO3, Ca2TiO4, CaZrO3, SrMoO3, and Sr2TiO4.
However, Zheng discloses a lithium-ion battery comprising a positive electrode and a positive electrode material comprising a lithium composite oxide (Abstract, entire disclosure dependent upon). Zheng teaches the use of Sr2TiO4 within the positive electrode material, specifically 0.15 wt% of strontium (Sr) based on the total weight of the positive electrode material, in order to prevent unwanted side reactions of the lithium composite oxide and, thereby, improving the cycle stability of the lithium-ion battery ([0015], [0025]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the positive electrode active material of Shimano in view of Leng such that the compound includes Sr2TiO4, specifically 0.15 wt% of strontium (Sr) based on the total weight of the positive electrode material, in order to prevent unwanted side reactions of the lithium composite oxide and, thereby, improving the cycle stability of the lithium-ion battery, as taught by Zheng.
Regarding Claim 9, Shimano in view of Leng and Zheng teaches the instantly claimed positive electrode active material according to Claim 7, and Shimano discloses wherein the compound CaWO4 is present in an amount of 1 part by weight or more per 100 parts by weight of the lithium transition metal composite oxide ([0069]) and (as previously described in the rejection of Claim 7) Shimano in view of Leng and Zhen discloses wherein Sr is present in an amount of 0.15 part by weight per 100 parts by weight of the positive electrode active material.
The skilled artisan would recognize that with a molecular mass of 287.918 g/mol for CaWO4, 287.103 g/mol for Sr2TiO4 and 97.2825 g/mol for LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2, 1 part by weight CaWO4 and 0.15 parts by weight of Sr within Sr2TiO4 to every 100 parts by weight of LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 would result in 0.003 mol CaWO4 and 0.0017 mol Sr for every 1.028 mol LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2. And, therefore, Shimano in view of Leng discloses wherein the total content of Ca and Sr in the compound CaWO4 is at least 0.4 mol% (which overlaps the claimed range of greater than or equal to 0.1 mol% and less than or equal to 3 mol%)2 relative to the total molar amount of elements excluding Li and O in the lithium transition metal composite oxide and the compound.
2 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).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVIA MASON MELFI whose telephone number is (703)756-4652. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7am-6pm EST.
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 on (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.
/O.M.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights