DETAILED ACTION
Application 18/303832, “POSITIVE ELECTRODE ACTIVE MATERIAL AND LITHIUM SECONDARY BATTERY COMPRISING THE SAME”, was filed with the USPTO on 4/20/23 and claims priority from a foreign application filed on 10/26/22.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action on the merits is in response to communication filed on 5/14/26.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 5/14/26 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. Applicant presents the following arguments.
None of the references teach a lithium manganese-based oxide having phases belonging to a C2/m group and an R3-m group in combination with minor axis lengths of 110 nm to 400 nm, and an aspect ratio of 1.28 to 5.69. Applicant particularly notes that the shape of the primary particles is different from that of Liu. In response, 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). Here, the rejection proposes to modify the rock-like particle shape of Liu in view of the rod-like primary particle shape Nakamura, thus the combination includes the required features.
The difference between the particles of the claimed invention and those of Liu is attributed to differences in manufacturing methods. In response, the claims as worded art drawn to a product, not a method of manufacture. The prior art is not required to teach making the particles by the same method as does applicant.
Applicant’s specification demonstrates that the claimed axis length range, 110 nm to 400 nm exhibits higher discharge capacity compared to the Comparative Examples, which utilize particles having minor axis length of 108.7 and 401.8 nm, respectively. In response, to be of probative value, the evidence of criticality should be commensurate in scope with the claimed invention (MPEP 716). Here, the Examples are substantially narrower in scope than the presently claimed invention. For example, each of examples 1-6 appear to describe particular lithium manganese oxides, each comprising nickel and manganese, and a fluorine added at a concentration of 1.8 mol% for LiF doping and 0.5 to 1.5 mol% for LiF:MgF2 doping. These appear to describe fairly specific oxide compounds, whereas claim 1 is broadly claimed, e.g. “a lithium manganese-based oxide… at least some of the oxygens present… are substituted with halogens”. The evidence does not demonstrate that any specific unexpected result would be expected over the breadth of the claimed invention.
The combination of Liu and Nakamura is improper because Liu utilizes a solid-state ball milling synthesis to produce OLO (overlithiated layered oxide), wherease Nakamura produces NMC (nickel-manganese-cobalt oxides). Nakamura controls process conditions of the co-precipitation to produce his structure including rod-like primary particles, thus the teaching is incompatible with Liu’s teaching of a method that produces isometric particles. In response, the claim is drawn to a product not a method of manufacture. The outstanding rejection proposes to modify Liu, which teaches a desirable over-lithiated, fluorine doped positive electrod active material, so as to possess rod-like primary particles having an aspect ratio within the claimed range, for the benefit of enhancing battery characteristics in view of Nakamura. The skilled artisan is not an automaton and would be able to modify or change the method of manufacture as desired or needed based on the prior art. Moreover, applicant may have intended to suggest that the recited properties of the claim, i.e. a lithium manganese-based oxide comprising both C2/m and R3/m phases could not be achieved if the method of manufacture was modified in view of Nakamura. However, there is no evidence to support such a claim. To the contrary, applicant’s specification (e.g. published paragraph [0025] appears to suggest that the presence of R3-m and C2/m phases is a consequence flowing from overlithiation of the oxide material, but does not suggest that the presence of the phases is achieved only for certain particular synthesis techniques. Moreover, it does appear that it was known in the art at the time of invention that overlithiated metal oxides could be produced using co-precipitation methods (as supporting evidence only, see Park [EP 4589688 at [0047-0049]; also published as WO 2024/058444 designating the US]). Thus, applicant’s argument that the differences in methods of making the active materials makes the art cited in the rejection improper to combine is not found persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-5, 7-14 and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over the combination of Liu (Siyu Liu et al., “Fluorine doping and Al2O3 coating Co-modified Li[Li0.20Ni0.133Co0.133Mn0.534]O2 as high performance cathode material for lithium-ion batteries”, Journal of Alloys and Compounds, Volume 731, 15 January 2018, Pages 636-645) and Nakamura (US 2019/0260024).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 10 and 18-19, Liu teaches a positive electrode active material (“cathode material”, title; section 2.1), comprising: a lithium manganese-based oxide with at least some of the oxygens present in the lithium manganese-based oxide are substituted with halogens [doped with fluorine as in claim 10] (“Li[Li0.20Ni0.133Co0.133Mn0.534]O2-xFx”, sections 2.1 and 3.1), in which in which a phase belonging to a C2/m space group and a phase belonging to an R3-m space group are dissolved or complexed (section 3.1 indicates that R3m and C2/m phases are present together, interpreted as “complexed”), and wherein the lithium manganese-based oxide comprises a secondary particle formed by aggregating a plurality of primary particles (Fig. 2).
Regarding the 5/14/26 amendment, Liu teaches primary particles having an average size of 300-400 nm (“grains” of section 3.1 correspond to the primary particles; see also the image of the primary particles at Fig. 2) falling within the 110 to 400 nm range of claim 1, but as to the 5/14/26 amendment to claim 1, does not appear to teach the primary particles having a major/minor axis length ratio of 1.28 to 5.69, or more narrowly between 2.59 and 3.96 as in claim 18, or have a rod shape as in claim 19. Additionally, as to claim 2, it is noted that the 300-400 nm suggested range of Liu does not overlap the 116 to 200 nm range which is claimed.
In the battery art, Nakamura teaches a positive electrode active material comprised of rid shaped primary particles having an average minor axis length of 200 to 500 nm and major/minor axis length ratio within the range of at least 2 up to 10 or about 2.5 to 3, for the benefit of providing “enhanced” “battery characteristics” (paragraph [0099-0092] with approximate major/minor axis ratio taken from aspect ratio of smaller particles 200short vs 500long and larger particles 500short vs 1500long).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to configure the primary particles of Liu to have a rod shape and an average minor axis length within the range of 200 to 500 nm and to have a minor/major axis ratio of greater than 2, such as 2.5 to 3, since such particles may provide improved battery characteristics as taught by Nakamura. The claimed ranges are found to be obvious for overlapping the obvious ranges suggested by the prior art as Nakamura suggests similar aspect ratio and minor axis length as low as 200 nm (MPEP 2144.05).
Additionally, it has been held that “a change in form, proportions, or degree “will not sustain a patent… It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions” (MPEP 2144.05 II); see also “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” (MPEP 2144.04 IVA). Here, the cited art teaches similar and/or overlapping ranges (Liu’s disclosure overlaps the 110 to 400 nm range of claim 1; Nakamura’s disclosure overlaps the 110 to 400 nm range of claim 1, and the 116 to 200 nm range of claim 2 at least at 200 nm). Thus, absent evidence of criticality associated with the claimed primary particle size range, the claimed range is not found to be nonobvious over the cited art.
As to the claimed methodology of determining axis lengths, the cited art does not appear to teach wherein determining the average value of the axis lengths of the particles the particles is calculated from 20 primary particles selected in the order from longest-to-shortest minor axis lengths from the primary particles exposed on the surface of the secondary particle from the SEM image of the secondary particle. However, this recitation is a method step, rather than a structural feature of the positive electrode active material; such method steps are not required of the prior art in product claims (MPEP 2113), considering that the claimed structure is found to be obvious for the reasons given.
Regarding claim 9, Liu and Nakamura remain as applied to claim 1. Liu does not appear to teach wherein the average value of the major and minor axis of the secondary particles is 0.5 to 15 microns.
In the battery art, Nakamura teaches a positive electrode active material having an average diameter preferably in the 6 to 15 micron range, for the benefit of providing desirably excellent output characteristics and packing density (paragraph [0095]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to configure the active material of Liu such that the average value of the major and minor axis of the secondary particles is 0.5 to 15 microns since Liu teaches that particles having a diameter of 6-15 microns provide desirably excellent output characteristics and packing density.
Regarding claim 3-5 and 7-8, Liu and Nakamura remain as applied to claim 1. These claims further require: 3) the minor axis length of the primary particle exposed on the surface of the secondary particle is 50 nm or more and 500 nm or less, 4) the minimum value of the minor axis length measured for the primary particle exposed on the surface of the secondary particle is 60 nm or more, 5) the maximum value of the minor axis length measured for the primary particle exposed on the surface of the secondary particle is 450 nm or less, 7) wherein, among the 20 primary particles selected in the order from longest-to-shortest minor axis lengths from the primary particles exposed on the surface of the secondary particle from the SEM image of the secondary particle, the proportion of primary particles having a minor axis length of 100 nm or more is more than 40% and 100% or less, and 8) wherein the average value of the major axis length and the minor axis length ([major axis length+minor axis length]/2) of the primary particles exposed on the surface of the secondary particle is 0.1 to 5 μm.
Liu’s teaching that the particles are rock shaped and have an average size of 300-400 nm (section 3.1; see also the scale of Fig. 2) appears to teach particles of a size which lie within the claimed ranges, or at least is similar enough to generate the same properties; therefore, these claims are rejected under 35 USC 102/103 for substantially the same reasons as given in the rejection of claim 1. It is noted that the minor length of a rock shaped particle is, absent a disclosure that the rock shaped particles are anisometric, approximately equal to the major axis length. Therefore, the reported average size of Liu corresponds to each of a minor axis length, a major axis length, and an average length.
Regarding claim 11, Liu and Nakamura remain as applied to claim 1. Claim 11 further requires that “the minor axis length of the primary particle increases in proportion to the content of the fluorine doped into the primary particle”. However, this limitation is not found to further limit the structure of the particle beyond that required in claim 1, particularly since claim 1 is drawn to a positive electrode active material having a certain minor axis length and, optionally, a certain fluorine content, not a variable minor axis length and fluorine content that could be scaled to demonstrate a proportional relationship.
The limitation appears to be drawn to a scientific understanding of the effects of doping on a material, rather than a new structural feature of the product.
Regarding claim 12-13, Liu and Nakamura remain as applied to claim 1. Liu teaches a compound of the form Li[Li0.20Ni0.133Co0.133Mn0.534]O2-xFx , which suggests the named M1, M2 and X=F constituents of claim 12 and 13, but does not expressly teach the lithium manganese oxide satisfying Formula 1.
However, Liu does teach a structure having a strong R3m peak, associated with the major phase, and a weak C2/m peak, associated with an Li2MnO3 type phase (Section 3.1).
This appears to be consistent with applicant’s Formula 1 since “r” may be a small number approaching zero, and the M1M2O2X type compound appears to be consistent with the major phase of Liu, represented by the Liu formula given above. Therefore, the claimed Formula 1 is found to be anticipated by Liu because the mixed phase compound is consistent with Formula 1 and could be written with that notation, or alternatively is obvious over Liu because the Liu compound does contain the Li2MnO3 and LiM1M2O2 type phases, so that the materials are compositionally similar with the formulaic difference in notation not associated with consequential functional difference in behavior.
Regarding claim 14, Liu and Nakamura remain as applied to claim 1. Claim 12 further requires that the minor axis length of the primary particle has increases in proportion to with the content of the fluorine, which corresponds to b or b’. However, this limitation is not found to further limit the structure of the particle beyond that required in claim 12, particularly since claim 12 is drawn to a positive electrode active material having a certain composition which includes a halogen, not a variable minor axis length and halogen content that could be scaled to demonstrate a proportional relationship.
The limitation appears to be drawn to a scientific understanding of the effects of doping on a halogen on the material, rather than a new structural feature of the product.
Regarding claim 16 and 17, Liu and Nakamura remain as applied to claim 1. Liu further teaches the positive electrode active material according to claim 1 used to form a positive electrode of a lithium secondary battery (section 2.3, first paragraph where the CR2032 coin cell with lithium metal reference electrode is a lithium secondary battery).
Claims 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Liu (Siyu Liu et al., “Fluorine doping and Al2O3 coating Co-modified Li[Li0.20Ni0.133Co0.133Mn0.534]O2 as high performance cathode material for lithium-ion batteries”, Journal of Alloys and Compounds, Volume 731, 15 January 2018, Pages 636-645), Nakamura (US 2019/0260024) and Lho (US 2022/0052331).
Regarding claim 15, Liu and Nakamura remain as applied to claim 1. Liu does not appear to teach wherein the lithium manganese-based oxide has a BET specific surface area of more than 0.58 m2/g and less than 2.46 m2/g.
In the battery art, Lho teaches a manganese based active material that is configured to have a specific surface area of 0.5 to 1.0 m2/g so that excessive manganese dissolution may be suppressed while manganese participates properly in the reaction (paragraph [0075]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to configure the lithium manganese-based oxide of Liu to have a specific surface area of 0.5 to 1.0 m2/g so that excessive manganese dissolution may be suppressed while manganese participates properly in the reaction as taught by Lho. The claimed range of 0.58 m2/g and less than 2.46 m2/g is found to be obvious because the range suggested by Lho largely lies within and substantially overlaps the claimed range.
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 JEREMIAH R SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7005. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9 AM-5 PM (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, Tiffany Legette-Thompson can be reached on (571)270-7078. 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.
/JEREMIAH R SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights