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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of group I (claims 1-9 and 18-20) in the reply filed on 8/10/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that it would not be a significant burden on the office to search and examine each of the identified invention.
This is not found persuasive because, as set forth in MPEP 808.02, the Examiner establishes that there would be a serious burden if restriction is not required by explanation one of the following: a) separate classification thereof, b) a separate status in the art when they are classifiably together, or c) a different field of search. The Examiner has identified the groups with separate classifications (see previous office action where Group I is classified in H01M 4/02 and Group II is identified in H01M 4/04). In addition, the groups would require a different field of search. For example, a search for lithium composite oxide with a shell may not uncover the method of lithium composite oxide and the application of the shell, mixing specific sources at specific temperatures and pressures for a specific time, and adjusting pH of solutions, and therefore different search queries would have to be used. Therefore, the Examiner has demonstrated serious burden in compliance with MPEP 808.02 and MPEP 803 because there is at least a separate classification thereof, and a different field of search.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 10-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 8/10/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-9, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawasaki et al. (US 2019/0097226) in view of Kim et al. (US 2012/0141873).
Regarding claim 1, Kawasaki discloses a positive electrode active material for a secondary battery (abstract). The positive electrode active material comprises a lithium transition metal composite of the formula LixNipMnqNbrM1sO4, where 1≤x≤1.3, 0.3≤p≤0.6, 1.2≤q≤1.7, 0.001≤r≤0.05, 0≤s≤0.2 and p+q+r+s≤2, and M1 is at least one from the group consisting of Al, Mg, Si, Ti, Cr, Fe, Co, Cu, Zn, and Ga ([0022]-[0023]). In an example, the composition is Li1.1Ni0.5Mn1.49Nb0.01O4 ([0066]); which reads on the claimed composition of Lix(NiyMn2-y)1-mMmO4 when M is Nb (which is a group V [Mendeleev system], VB [CAS system], VA [Old IUPAC system] element) and m=0.01.
However, Kawasaki does not explicitly disclose the composite oxide is the core of a core-shell structure, where the shell comprises lithium aluminum phosphate, and optionally comprises lithium aluminum phosphate and aluminum phosphate.
Kim discloses a positive active material including a core of a lithium nickel-based composite oxide, and a composite coating layer [shell] that is formed on a surface of the core and includes lithium metal phosphate and metal phosphate (abstract, [0014]). The lithium metal phosphate is of the formula LiMPO4, and the metal phosphate is of the formula M3(PO4)2, where M is at least one from the group consisting of Ni, Co, Mn, Fe, Cu, Mg, and Al ([0016]-[0018]). Kim teaches that the coating [shell] provides an active material with high thermal stability and high charge and discharge capacity because the coating forms a structurally stable composite coating layer ([0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the coating [shell] of lithium metal phosphate and metal phosphate [including lithium aluminum phosphate and aluminum phosphate] as taught by Kim with the positive active material of Kawasaki for the purpose of providing the active material with high thermal stability and high charge and discharge capacity because the coating forms a structurally stable composite coating layer.
Regarding claim 2, modified Kawasaki discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. The positive electrode active material comprises a lithium transition metal composite of the formula LixNipMnqNbrM1sO4, where 1≤x≤1.3, 0.3≤p≤0.6, 1.2≤q≤1.7, 0.001≤r≤0.05, 0≤s≤0.2 and p+q+r+s≤2, and M1 is at least one from the group consisting of Al, Mg, Si, Ti, Cr, Fe, Co, Cu, Zn, and Ga ([0022]-[0023]). In an example, the composition is Li1.1Ni0.5Mn1.49Nb0.01O4 ([0066]). Therefore, Kawasaki discloses that M can be Nb, and y=0.5, and renders obvious 0.003≤m≤0.007 because the value of 0.01 is close, and because Kawasaki teaches an overlapping range and that the amount of niobium affects the output and cycle characteristics ([0013]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Kawasaki discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. With regards to the limitation of “wherein the core satisfies 0 < (A1/A2)1/2 ≤ 0.2, wherein A1 represents peak area of a diffraction peak of the core at 2θ of 43.7 ± 0.2° in an X-ray diffraction pattern determined by using a powder X-ray diffractometer with Cu Kα1 ray, and A2 represents peak area of a diffraction peak of the core at 2θ of 18.8 ± 0.1° in the X-ray diffraction pattern determined by using the powder X-ray diffractometer with Cu Kα1 ray”, Kawasaki does not explicitly disclose this limitation. However, the specification describes these properties as relating to the composite oxide having low oxygen defects (paragraph [0088]). Further, the specification teaches that the M in the claimed range reduces the oxygen defect (paragraphs [0084], [0086]), and having a low sintering temperature (paragraph [0106]) and oxygen in the heating steps (paragraph [0127]) reduces the oxygen defects.
As Kawasaki discloses the compound having M in the claimed range (see Li1.1Ni0.5Mn1.49Nb0.01O4 [0066]), the crystal generation step has oxygen and is at a low temperature ([0033]), and the heat treatment is performed in air ([0036]), Kawasaki teaches operations which would similarly reduce the oxygen defect. Therefore, Kawasaki tends to show inherency of the claimed property because Kawasaki teaches the same composition, with the same or substantially the same methods of making to reduce oxygen defect.
However, if it is taken that Kawasaki does not have the material with the recited properties, the differences in the properties would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art absent unexpected results, because Kim also teaches adjusting the amount of impurities [related to oxygen defects] on the surface to change the amounts of metal phosphate and lithium metal phosphate in the shell layer ([0039]-[0040]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Kawasaki discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. As seen in Figure 1 of Kim, the shell/coating has a uniform and continuous thickness (Kim at [0053], “uniformity of the coating layer”).
Regarding claim 5, modified Kawasaki discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Kim describes the lithium metal phosphate as embedded in the shell and discreetly distributed ([0039], see Fig 1, with lithium metal phosphate in the shell).
Regarding claim 6, modified Kawasaki discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. With regards to the limitation of “wherein based on a total weight of element P in the shell, a percentage of element P in the lithium aluminum phosphate in the shell is greater than 0 and less than or equal to 50wt%”, modified Kawasaki does not explicitly disclose this limitation.
However, Kim teaches that the ratio of compositions of lithium metal phosphate and the metal phosphate in the composite coating layer may vary according to the amount of lithium that reacts with the metal phosphate and the lithium in an impurity state and the amount of metal phosphate ([0040]), and further teaches that the lithium metal phosphate is formed in a distributed state and close to the surface of the core ([0039]). That is, Kim suggests that the amount of lithium metal phosphate is less than the amount of metal phosphate because 1) the lithium metal phosphate is formed only close to the surface of core [as compared to through the shell which has more volume], 2) the lithium metal phosphate is distributed in the metal phosphate matrix [meaning there are gaps between areas of lithium metal phosphate], and 3) the amount of lithium metal phosphate is depicted as less than metal phosphate in Figure 3. Therefore, as Kim suggests there is more metal phosphate than lithium metal phosphate, the percentage of P in the lithium aluminum phosphate in the shell is greater than 0 and less than or equal to 50wt% because lithium aluminum phosphate is present but less than half.
Regarding claim 8, modified Kawasaki discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Kawasaki teaches the average particle diameter is preferably between 3 μm and 12 μm ([0046]), and provides an example of 4.9 μm [which rounds to 5 μm] ([0065]). Further, the composite oxide has a BET surface area between 0.5-1.5 m2/g ([0019]), and Kawasaki provides examples between 0.70-0.78 m2/g ([0065]-[0066], Table 1).
Regarding claim 9, modified Kawasaki discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. With regards to the limitations of “wherein particle morphology of the lithium-nickel-manganese-containing composite oxide is single crystal or quasi-single crystal, and optionally single crystal; and grain shape of the lithium-nickel-manganese-containing composite oxide is an octahedron with blunted edges”, Kawasaki does not explicitly disclose these limitations.
However, the instant specification teaches that a spinel-type lithium nickel manganate is mostly an octahedron or a truncated octahedron (see paragraph [0089]), and “the doping element M provided in this application also helps to blunt edges and corners of the octahedron” (paragraph [0239]).
Kawasaki discloses the compound having M in the claimed range (see Li1.1Ni0.5Mn1.49Nb0.01O4 [0066]), and that the composite oxide has a spinel structure ([0056]). Further, Kawasaki presents zoomed-in shapes of the active material that appears to be octahedrons and of a single crystal (see Kawasaki Figs 1-3, compared to instant Figures 11 and 13 which is more zoomed out). Therefore, Kawasaki tends to show inherency of the claimed property because Kawasaki teaches the same composition, with the same crystal structure, and shows a shape that is the same or substantially the same as claimed.
Regarding claims 18-20, modified Kawasaki discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Kawasaki teaches that the electrode includes a collector and a positive-electrode active material layer disposed on the collector, where the positive electrode is used in an amount of 90 parts by mass out of 100 parts by mass of the positive electrode mixture (90 parts active material, 5 parts acetylene black, 5 parts PVDF) ([0026]-[0027], [0087]). Kawasaki further teaches that batteries can be used to power secondary devices ([0003]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawasaki et al. (US 2019/0097226) in view of Kim et al. (US 2012/0141873), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Huang et al. (CN 102969494, see machine translation).
Regarding claim 7, modified Kawasaki discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. While Kim discloses a composite coating layer [shell] that is formed on a surface of the core and includes lithium metal phosphate and metal phosphate (abstract, [0014]), modified Kawasaki does not explicitly disclose wherein the thickness of the shell is below 30 nm.
Huang discloses a lithium nickel manganese oxide composite material for an active material, wherein an aluminum phosphate layer is coated on the surface on the composite material (abstract). The thickness of the aluminum phosphate layer is between 5-20 nanometers ([0036]), and can be with a uniform and continuous thickness ([0036]). Huang teaches if the coating is too high, the thick coating will cause obstacles to lithium ion insertion and extraction ([0087]), and teaches that the coating improves the specific capacity of the positive electrode active material ([0085]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a thickness of the aluminum phosphate layer between 5-20 nm as taught by Huang with the coating layer of Kawasaki modified by Kim for the purpose of using a known thickness that improves the specific capacity of the active material and will not presenting an obstacle to lithium ion insertion and extraction.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize, by routine experimentation, the amount and thickness of the coating layer [shell] (including in the amount of 5-20 nm) of Kawasaki modified by Kim for obtaining the desired balance between improving specific capacity and an obstacle to lithium ion insertion and extraction.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB BUCHANAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1186. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00 PM (ET).
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at 571-270-3879. 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.
/JACOB BUCHANAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights