Response to Amendment
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 .
REJECTIONS
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Double Patenting
Claims 1, 2, and 4-6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory
double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 of copending application No.
18/313,375 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they
are not patentably distinct from each other because application '375 claims similar
positive electrode active material.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the
patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding claims 1 and 5, application '375 claims a nonaqueous electrolyte
secondary battery comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and a
nonaqueous electrolyte, wherein the positive electrode includes (positive electrode
upper layer) an active material including a Ni content lithium complex oxide containing
70 mol% or more of nickel relative to a total of metal elements other than lithium, and a
boron element attached to the Ni content lithium complex oxide, wherein the Ni content
lithium complex oxide is a secondary particle in which primary particles are aggregated
and has a porosity of 2% or more and 10% or less, in the Ni content lithium complex
oxide, a larger space than an average cross- sectional area of the primary particles
does not exist inside the secondary particle in a cross- sectional observation image
observed with an electron microscope, and the boron element is contained by 0.5 mol%
or more and 3 mol% or less when a total of metal elements of the Ni content lithium
complex oxide is 100 mol% (claims 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 2, application '375 claims wherein the boron element exists on a
surface of the primary particle inside the secondary particle (claims 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 4, application '375 claims wherein the Ni content lithium
complex oxide is a lithium-nickel-cobalt-manganese complex oxide (claim 5).
Regarding claim 6, application '375 claims a manufacturing method for a positive
electrode (positive electrode upper layer) active material including a Ni content lithium
complex oxide containing 70 mol% or more of nickel relative to a total of metal elements
other than lithium, and a boron element attached to the Ni content lithium complex
oxide, the manufacturing method comprising: a base material preparing step of
preparing the Ni content lithium complex oxide as a base material, the Ni content lithium
complex oxide being a secondary particle in which primary particles are aggregated,
having a porosity of 2% or more and 10% or less, and excluding a larger space than an
average cross-sectional area of the primary particles inside the secondary particle in a
cross-sectional observation image observed with an electron microscope; and a boron
introducing step of introducing the boron element into the space inside the secondary
particle of the base material so that the boron element is contained by 0.5 mol% or
more and 3 mol% or less when a total of metal elements of the Ni content lithium
complex oxide is 100 mol% (claims 1, 2 and 3).
Claim 3 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting
as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 of copending Application No. 18/313,375 in view
of Takahashi et al. (U.S. PG Pub 2022/0367852 A1). It is an obvious type double patenting as the Ni content lithium complex oxide is the same material as the second Ni content lithium complex oxide as claimed in the application ’375 (claims 1 and 2).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Application ’375 is relied upon above.
Application ’375 fails to claim the positive electrode active material has a
compressive strength of 200 MPa or more.
Takahashi discloses a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery (Ref. #10,
figure 1) comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and a nonaqueous
electrolyte (para. 0009). The positive electrode includes an active material comprising a
Ni content lithium complex oxide (lithium-transition metal composite oxide A).
Takahashi discloses the lithium-transition metal composite oxide (A) which is a
secondary particle formed by aggregated primary particles and contains 65 mol% or
more of nickel relative to a total of metal elements other than lithium (para. 0009). The
compressive strength of the composite oxide (A) is 250 MPa or higher, which inhibits
particle cracking due to charge and discharge. Resulting in contribution to improvement
in the cycle characteristics at high temperature (para. 0034).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention, to have the positive electrode active material of
application ‘375 have a compressive strength of 250 MPa or higher as shown by
composite oxide (A) Takahashi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been
motivated to have the positive electrode active material of application ‘375 have a
compressive strength of 250 MPa or higher in order to inhibit particle cracking due to
charge and discharge.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Takahashi et al. (U.S. PG Pub 2022/0367852 A1) in view of Kim et al. (U.S. PG Pub
2018/0151876).
Regarding claim 1, 2, 5 and 6, Takahashi et al. discloses a nonaqueous
electrolyte secondary battery (ref. #10, figure 1) comprising a positive electrode, a
negative electrode, and a nonaqueous electrolyte (para. 0009). The positive electrode
includes an active material comprising a Ni content lithium complex oxide (lithium-
transition metal composite oxide B) and a boron element on the surface (para. 0009).
The positive electrode is made by preparing the Ni content lithium complex oxide
as a base material, such that the Ni content lithium complex oxide is a secondary
particle formed by aggregated primary particles and contains 70 mol% or more of nickel
relative to a total of metal elements other than lithium (para. 0009). The method of making the positive electrode further includes a step of introducing the boron element into the space inside the secondary particle of the base
material, since Takahashi et al. discloses that part of the boron may also be present on
the surface of the primary particles (para. 0039) which are inside the secondary particle.
In example 1, Takahashi et al. teaches that the molar ratio between Li and the
total amount of Ni, Co, and Mn is 1.08:1, and the molar ratio between the total amount
of Ni, Co, and Mn and B is 100:1.5 (para. 0067, 0071 and 0072). Thus, the positive
electrode contains 0.7 mol% of the boron element when the total of metal elements of
the Ni content lithium complex oxide is 100 mol%.
Takahashi et al. fails to disclose the Ni content lithium complex oxide secondary
particle has a porosity of 2% or more and 10% or less or that a larger space than an
average cross- sectional area of the primary particles does not exist inside the
secondary particle.
Kim et al. discloses a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery (lithium
secondary battery, ref. #20, figure 2) comprising a positive electrode, a negative
electrode, and a nonaqueous electrolyte (para. 0087). The positive electrode includes
an active material comprising a Ni content lithium complex oxide. The Ni content lithium
complex oxide is a secondary particle formed by aggregated primary particles (para.
0005) and contains about 33-95 mol% of nickel relative to a total of metal elements
other than lithium (para. 0054).
Kim et al. discloses that the porosity in the interior of the secondary particle is
10% or less and the pore size is less than 200 nm, which increases particle density
(para. 0033-0035) and suppresses cracking (para. 0058).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention, to have a porosity of 10% or less and a pore size of
200 nm or less in the secondary particle of Takahashi et al. as taught by Kim et al. One
of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify porosity of Takahashi et
al. in order to increase particle density, particle strength, and make it more resistant to
cracking.
Takahashi et al. further discloses that the primary particles of composite oxide
(B) have a diameter of 0.3 µm or smaller (para. 0009). Therefore, since the
combination of Takahashi et al. and Kim et al. teach that the pore sizes are smaller than
the diameter of the primary particles, a larger space than an average cross- sectional
area of the primary particles will not exist inside the secondary particle.
Regarding claim 3, Takahashi et al. fails to disclose that the lithium-transition
metal composite oxide (B) has a compressive strength is 200 MPa or more.
Takahashi et al. further discloses a lithium-transition metal composite oxide (A)
which is also a secondary particle formed by aggregated primary particles and contains
65 mol% or more of nickel relative to a total of metal elements other than lithium (para.
0009). The compressive strength of the composite oxide (A) is 250 MPa or higher,
which inhibits particle cracking due to charge and discharge. Resulting in contribution to
improvement in the cycle characteristics at high temperature (para. 0034).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention, to have the composite oxide (B) of Takahashi et al
have a compressive strength of 250 MPa or higher as shown by composite oxide (A)
Takahashi et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have
composite oxide (B) of Takahashi et al. have a compressive strength of 250 MPa or
higher in order to inhibit particle cracking due to charge and discharge.
Regarding claim 4, Takahashi et al. discloses the Ni content lithium complex
oxide is a lithium-nickel-cobalt-manganese complex oxide (para. 0067).
Regarding claim 7, 8, and 11, Takahashi et al. discloses composite oxide (A) having an average primary particle diameter of 0.5 μm to 3 μm (para. 0028) overlapping with the claimed ranges of 1 μm or more and 5 μm or less and 1.5 μm or more and 5 μm or less. MPEP 2144.05 (I)
Regarding claim 9, Takahashi et al. discloses composite oxide (B) having an average secondary particle diameter of 6 μm to 25 μm (para. 0009, 0026) encompassing the claimed range. MPEP 2144.05 (I)
Claim 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (US PG Pub. 2022/0367852 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US PG Pub. 2018/0151876) as applied above, and further in view of You et al. (Multi-scale boron penetration toward stabilizing nickel -rich cathode).
Takahashi et al. and Kim et al. are relied upon as described above.
Takahashi et al. and Kim et al. fails to disclose the quantity of the boron element inside the secondary particle is larger than a quantity of the boron element on the surface of the secondary particle.
You et al. discloses a nickel rich cathode material treated with lithium borate (LBO) and a multi-scale boron penetration strategy wherein the boron is covered on the surface of both primary and secondary particles (page. 619, para.1). You et al discloses LBO filled in the gaps between interior primary particles can prevent the formation and extending of intergranular cracks.(page 619, col.1, para.1). You et al. further disclose boron penetrates from the surface of particles to interior along the tunnels and fills the grain gaps between primary particles ranging from 50- 200 nm, padding larger pores inside the secondary particles (page. 621, col. 2, para. 1) and strong signal of boron are acquired in different regions, suggesting that boron penetrates from the surface of particles to interior along the tunnels and fills the grain gaps. There by implying quantity of the boron element inside the secondary particles is larger than a quantity of the boron element on the surface of the secondary particle. You et al. discloses LBO in grain boundaries and gaps provides reduces the distance for lithium ions diffusion (figure 7 a, page 624, col. 2 para. 2), significantly improving the Li + diffusion kinetics and rate performance, the trace boron doping on the surface and subsurface of grains enhances the structural stability (figure 7 b, page 624, col. 2 para. 2), the LBO padded in grain gaps functions as a binder for adjacent grains which bears the strain in the anisotropic shrinkage process and stress in the anisotropic expansion process, avoiding strain concentration and subsequent inter- granular cracks generation (figure 7 c, page 624, col. 2 para. 2) and the coating layer avoids direct contact between the sensitive cathode surfaces and electrolytes, distinctly ameliorating the parasitic reactions and suppressing the related gas evolution (figure 7 d, page 624, col. 2 para. 2). Accordingly, both structural stability and lithium- ion-diffusion kinetics of Ni rich lithium complex oxide can be remarkably enhanced thereby improving its cycling performance and rate capability. (page. 619, para.1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have larger quantity of the boron element inside the secondary particle than on the surface of the secondary particles as taught by You et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify positive electrode active material of Takahashi et al as taught by You et al. for both structural stability and enhancing lithium- ion-diffusion kinetics of Ni rich lithium complex oxide can be remarkably thereby improving its cycling performance and rate capability.
ANSWERS TO APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS
Applicant's arguments filed 04/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the double patenting rejection on page 6 have been considered but they are not persuasive. The claims are not patentably distinct and the rejection is maintained.
Regarding applicants’ argument on page 8 that Kim demonstrates a larger than an average cross-sectional area of the primary particles does exist inside Kim’s nickel -based active material secondary particle, the figures are not to scale and additionally the teaching of interior pore size is relied upon rather than exterior pore teaching as stated by the applicant. Kim et al. discloses that the porosity in the interior of the secondary particle is 10% or less and the pore size is less than 200 nm, which increases particle density (para. 0033-0035) which is smaller than the disclosed primary particle size of 0.3 micrometers in Takahashi et al.
Regarding applicants’ argument on page 9, Kim discloses that the specific pore arrangement in its nickel- based active material secondary particle structures reduces a lithium diffusion distance from an electrolyte solution into the secondary particles and reduces a volume change of the secondary particles that may occur during charging/discharging and Kim teaches a specific secondary particle that reduces the number of cracks that can occur during discharging/charging (para. 0021-0022). Even if this is true, it does not contradict with the limitations being met. Kim et al describes the interior portion as a tight (compact or dense) structures and quantifies interior porosity in the range about 0.000001% to 5 % (para. 0033) and the pore size in the interior portion of the secondary particles is less than 200 nm (para. 0034). Takahashi discloses that the average primary particles of composite oxide (B) have a diameter of 0.3 µm or smaller (para. 0009). Since 200 nm is less than 0.3 µm and Kim et al. teaches a dense-interior particles to avoid volume change and cracking problems (para. 0041, 0057-0058, 0084) which is relied upon, there by meeting the limitation “a larger space than an average cross-sectional area of the primary particles does not exist inside the secondary particle”.
Regarding applicants the argument on page 10, combining the two references would change the principle of operation of the prior art invention being modified and Kim fails to teach or suggest all claim elements and Takahashi fails to teach or suggest “a larger space than an average cross-sectional area of the primary particles does not exist inside the secondary particle” is not persuasive.
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Takahashi. discloses a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery (ref. #10, figure 1). The positive electrode includes an active material comprising a 70 mol% or more of nickel relative to a total of metal elements other than lithium (para. 0009). Takahashi discloses the improvement of cycle characteristics in high nickel content positive electrode active material (para. 0008) The Ni content lithium complex oxide is a secondary particle formed by aggregated primary particles. Kim discloses a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery (ref. #20, figure 2) comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and a nonaqueous electrolyte (para. 0087). The positive electrode includes an active material comprising a Ni content lithium complex oxide and contains about 33-95 mol% of nickel relative to a total of metal elements other than lithium (para. 0054). The Ni content lithium complex oxide is a secondary particle formed by aggregated primary particles (para. 0005). Kim teaches a dense-interior particles to avoid volume change and cracking problems large pores cause (para. 0041, para. 0058) occurring in high nickel content positive electrode (para. 0054).
Takahashi and Kim are analogues art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify pores of Takahashi as taught by Kim in order to increase particle density, particle strength, and make it more resistant to cracking.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ISWARYA MATHEW whose telephone number is (571)272-9515. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 3:00 PM.
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, ALICIA CHEVALIER can be reached at (571) 272-1490. 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.
/I.M./
Iswarya MathewExaminer, Art Unit 1788
6/30/2026
/ALEXANDRE F FERRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788
Prosecution Insights