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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-12, 19, and 20, in the reply filed on March 30, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 13-18, withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the specification does not appear to provide support for the claimed subject matter, specifically the body material. Claim 1 recites that the body material is represented by general formula LixNiyMnzMm-O4Qq. Example 12, Li1.05Ni0.51Mn1.49-O3.9F0.1, in the written description is the only instance provided by Applicant where the value of q is nonzero. However, the subscript for oxygen in this example is 3.9. It is unclear if Applicant is attempting to claim a lithium complex oxide where the oxygen content remains unchanged despite the addition of fluorine and/or chlorine as currently recited in claim 1 or a lithium complex oxide where fluorine and/or chlorine substitute for some of the oxygen in the compound. In other words, is Applicant claiming the body material as currently recited in claim 1 or did Applicant intend to claim a body material represented as LixNiyMnzMm-O4-qQq?
Appropriate correction is required.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 3 and 11 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.
The term “gradually decrease” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “gradually decrease” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Particularly, it is unclear what rates of decrease of the dopant contents qualify as “gradual” and which to not, rendering the claim indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the term will be interpreted to recite “decrease.”
The word “or” in line 4 of claim 11 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if Applicant is presenting alternative limitations or intends to require both limitations in the same embodiment. For the purposes of examination, the word “or” will be interpreted to be “and.”
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, 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 1-4, 9-12, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Holman et al. (US 2020/0203706 A1), hereinafter “Holman.”
Regarding claim 1, Choi discloses a spinel-type nickel-manganese-lithium-containing composite oxide comprising a body material represented by a general formula LixNiyMnzMm-O4Qq, in this case LixMn2-y-zNiyMzO4-nXn where 0.025 ≤ x ≤ 1.1, 0.3 ≤ y < 0.5, 0 < z ≤ 0.15, and, 0 < n ≤ 1, M is a metal selected from the group consisting of gallium (Ga), zirconium (Zr), niobium (Nb), molybdenum (Mo), tungsten (W), barium (Ba), calcium (Ca), strontium (Sr), lanthanum (La), cerium (Ce), silver (Ag), tantalum (Ta), hafnium (Hf), ruthenium (Ru), bismuth (Bi), antimony (Sb), tin (Sn), and arsenic (As), and X is a halogen element selected from the group consisting of fluorine (F), chloride (Cl), bromine (Br), and iodine (I) (¶ [0011]-[0013]).
Regarding claim 1, Holman discloses a spinel-type nickel-manganese-lithium-containing composite oxide comprising:
a body material represented by a general formula LixNiyMnzMm-O4Qq, in this case LiMn1.5Ni0.5O4 (¶ [0142]) where q = m = 0; and
doping elements doped in the body material comprising P and one or more elements selected from Nb, W, and Sb, in this case dopant material is selected from P, Nb, and others (¶ [0019] & [0041]).
Holman further discloses that the dopant materials make the active material less reactive and stabilize the active material’s crystal structure against degradation from electrochemical cycling (¶ [0045]), but does not specify the loading of P and Nb relative to the lithium composite oxide. However, one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to balance the benefit of degradation prevention provided by the dopant against the reduced electrochemical performance when determining the dopant loading in the lithium composite oxide. Therefore, it would have been obvious to try a P loading, k, of 0.48 wt% ≤ k ≤ 3.05 wt% and a Nb loading, g, of 0.05 wt% ≤ g ≤ 0.31 wt% where 2 ≤
k
g
≤ 20 in order to provide the desired degradation effect while maintaining satisfactory electrochemical performance. See M.P.E.P. § 2143 E.
Regarding claim 2, Holman further discloses that the dopant materials make the active material less reactive and stabilize the active material’s crystal structure against degradation from electrochemical cycling (¶ [0045]), but does not specify the loading of P and Nb relative to the lithium composite oxide. However, one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to balance the benefit of degradation prevention provided by the dopant against the reduced electrochemical performance when determining the dopant loading in the lithium composite oxide. Therefore, it would have been obvious to try a P loading, k, of 1.36 wt% ≤ k ≤ 2.95 wt% and a Nb loading, g, of 0.07 wt% ≤ g ≤ 0.21 wt% where 6 ≤
k
g
≤ 20 in order to provide the desired degradation effect while maintaining satisfactory electrochemical performance. See M.P.E.P. § 2143 E.
Regarding claim 3, Holman further discloses that the content of doping elements P and Nb form a gradient that decreases from the surface of the body material, in this case the materials may be a continuously graded coating where the material composition of the coating gradually changes throughout the thickness of the coating (¶ [0165]).
Regarding claim 4, Holman further discloses a monocrystalline morphology, in this case the NMC crystal structure is an α-NaFeO.sub.2 crystal structure with alternating atomic layers of lithium and transition metal oxides.
Regarding claim 9, Holman further discloses that the particle size, D50, is 2-15 μm and optionally 6-15 μm, in this case the NMC powder has a d50 of 5-15μm (¶ [0020]). A prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. M.P.E.P. § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 10, Holman further discloses that the particle size, D50, is 6-15 μm, in this case the NMC powder has a d50 of 5-15μm (¶ [0020]). A prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. M.P.E.P. § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 11, Holman further discloses that the surface of the spinel-type nickel-manganese-lithium-containing composite oxide has a coating layer, in this case core-shell structures of battery particles (¶ [0165]), wherein:
the coating layer comprises Al, Ti, and Zr, in this case the dopant may also include Al, Ti, and Zr (¶ [0041]).
Holman further discloses that the dopant materials make the active material less reactive and stabilize the active material’s crystal structure against degradation from electrochemical cycling (¶ [0045]), but does not specify the loading of Al, Ti, and Zr relative to the lithium composite oxide. However, one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to balance the benefit of degradation prevention provided by the dopant against the reduced electrochemical performance when determining the dopant loading in the lithium composite oxide. Therefore, it would have been obvious to try a Al, Ti, or Zr loading of 0.05 wt%-2. wt% in order to provide the desired degradation effect while maintaining satisfactory electrochemical performance. See M.P.E.P. § 2143 E.
Regarding claim 12, the limitation “wherein when the spinel-type nickel-manganese-lithium-containing composite oxide is charged/discharged at 0.05C-0.2C in a button half battery, a proportion of a charge capacity at 3.5 V-4.4 V in the first cycle to a charge capacity at 3.5 V-4.95 V in the first cycle is < 3%” is a product-by-process limitation. Applicant is reminded that “‘even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.’ In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted).” See M.P.E.P. § 2113. Here, Holman teaches all of the positively-recited structural limitations of the claim, thus rendering it obvious.
Regarding claim 19, Holman further discloses a battery, in this case a lithium ion battery (e.g. ¶ [0003]).
Regarding claim 20, Holman further discloses an electric apparatus, in this case electronic devices (¶ [0075]).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Holman as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Endo et al. (US 2017/0373319 A1), hereinafter “Endo.”
Regarding claim 5, Holman does not disclose the specific surface area. However, Endo teaches the specific surface area for LiMn1.5Ni0.5O4 in a lithium ion battery of 0.7 m2/g (¶ [0132]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that providing LiMn1.5Ni0.5O4 with this specific surface area would have yielded the predictable result of a functional electrode material for a lithium ion battery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have provided LiMn1.5Ni0.5O4 with a specific gravity of less than or equal to 1 m2/g in order to have yielded the predictable result of a functional lithium ion battery electrode material.
Regarding claim 6, Holman does not disclose the specific surface area. However, Endo teaches the specific surface area for LiMn1.5Ni0.5O4 in a lithium ion battery of 0.7 m2/g (¶ [0132]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that providing LiMn1.5Ni0.5O4 with this specific surface area would have yielded the predictable result of a functional electrode material for a lithium ion battery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have provided LiMn1.5Ni0.5O4 with a specific gravity of 0.1 m2/g to 0.8 m2/g in order to have yielded the predictable result of a functional lithium ion battery electrode material.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Holman as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Yushin et al. (US 2020/0373555 A1), hereinafter “Yushin.”
Regarding claim 7, Holman does not disclose the density. However, Yushin teaches conventional lithium ion battery materials such as LiMn1.5Ni0.5O4 typically possess high densities of 3.8 to 6 g/cm3 (¶ [0038]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that providing LiMn1.5Ni0.5O4 with a density of greater than 4.45 g/cm3 would have yielded the predictable result of a functioning lithium ion battery electrode material. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have made the LiMn1.5Ni0.5O4 density to be greater than or equal to 4.45 g/cm3 in order to have yielded a functional lithium ion battery electrode material.
Regarding claim 8, Holman does not disclose the density. However, Yushin teaches conventional lithium ion battery materials such as LiMn1.5Ni0.5O4 typically possess high densities of 3.8 to 6 g/cm3 (¶ [0038]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that providing LiMn1.5Ni0.5O4 with a density of 4.5 g/cm3 to 4.7 g/cm3 would have yielded the predictable result of a functioning lithium ion battery electrode material. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have made the LiMn1.5Ni0.5O4 density to be 4.5 g/cm3 to 4.7 g/cm3 in order to have yielded a functional lithium ion battery electrode material.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT J CHMIELECKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am to 5 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, 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.
/SCOTT J. CHMIELECKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights