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 without traverse of Group I: claims 1-13 and 23-27 in the reply filed on 20 August 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 14-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-27 are pending in the current application, claims 14-22 are withdrawn, and claims 1-13 and 23-27 are under consideration on the merits.
Examiner Note
It is noted that all references hereinafter to Applicant’s Specification are to the published application US 2024/0266529 A1, unless stated otherwise. Further, it is noted that italicized text in parentheses recited in any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 indicates the element of the claimed invention to which the preceding prior art element corresponds. Additionally, any italicized text utilized hereinafter is to be interpreted as emphasis placed thereupon.
Claim Objections
Claim 25 is objected to because of the following informality:
Regarding claim 25, “the positive active material” constitutes inconsistent claim language relative to the phrase “the positive electrode active material” recited in claims 23 and 1, of which claim 25 directly and ultimately depends upon, respectively, which hinders the readability of the claim. In order to overcome the objection, the following amendment is respectfully suggested: “the positive electrode active material.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 24 is 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.
Regarding claim 24, “the single crystal single particle” renders the claim indefinite. Neither claim 24, nor claims 23 and 1, of which claim 24 directly and ultimately depends upon, respectively, introduce the single crystal single particle species. Therefore, it is unclear what element or feature is intended to be limited by the single crystal single particle species. For the purposes of examination, claim 24 is interpreted as instead reciting “s.” Support for this suggestion may be seen in Applicant’s Specification ¶0059 and ¶0198.
Appropriate action is required.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 9-10, 13, 23, and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawai et al. (US 2022/0255064 A1; “Kawai”), in view of Mori et al. (US 2013/0337331 A1; “Mori”) and Sattar et al. (Scientific Reports (2020) 10:8562; “Sattar”). Mendez Agudelo et al. (US 2021/0098782 A1; “Mendez Agudelo”) is relied upon as an evidentiary reference in support of the rejection.
Regarding claim 1, Kawai discloses a nonaqueous electrolyte lithium-ion secondary battery comprising a positive electrode containing a positive electrode active material for a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery (a positive electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery), a negative electrode, and a nonaqueous electrolyte disposed therebetween [0010, 0117, 0119, 0121, 0149-0150]. The positive electrode active material contains secondary particles formed by aggregation of a plurality of primary particles containing a lithium transition metal composite oxide having a layered structure [0010, 0042]. The lithium transition metal composite oxide having a layered structure, also has a hexagonal crystal structure represented by the following formula: Lip1Nix1Coy1M1z1M2w1O2, wherein 0.95≤p1≤1.5, 0.3≤x1≤1, 0≤y1≤0.5, 0≤z1≤0.5, 0≤w1≤0.1, and x1+y1+z1+w1≤1, and wherein M1 may denote at least one of Mn and Al, and M2 may denote at least one selected from the group consisting of B, Na, Mg, Si, P, S, K, Ca, Ti, V, Cr, Fe, Cu, Zn, Ga, Sr, Y, Zr, Nb, Mo, In, Sn, Ba, La, Ce, Nd, Sm, Eu, Gd, Lu, Ta, W, and Bi, and may denote at least one selected from the group consisting of Zr, Ti, Mg, Ta, Nb, Mo, and W [0058, 0092-0096]. Molybdenum is in the narrower range of elements that M2 may be, additionally, M2 has the lowest and narrowest content range.
Given that the crystal secondary particles defined by claim 1 does not define or imply any requisite degree for being “large” such that any degree of size reads thereon (MPEP 2111, MPEP 2111.01, and MPEP 2173.01(I)), the aforementioned, in totality, reads on large crystal secondary particles of a nickel-based lithium metal oxide which comprise a plurality of primary particles, as claimed.
Mendez Agudelo evidences that one or more metals M in the following cathode active material formula Li1+e(NiaCobMncMd)1−eO2, are called “dopants” or “doping metal” since they are usually present at minor amounts, e.g. at maximum 10 mol% M or at maximum 5 mol% M or at maximum 1 mol% based on the total amount of metal except lithium present in a transition metal oxide [Mendez Agudelo, 0157-0168].
The primary particles have an average particle diameter of 0.1 μm to 1.5 μm [Kawai, 0021], of which overlaps with the claimed range, about 1 μm to about 4 μm, thereby rendering the range obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)). The secondary particles have a volume average particle diameter of 1 μm to 30 μm [Kawai, 0020], of which overlaps with the claimed range, about 10 μm to about 18 μm, thereby rendering the range obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
A compound containing cobalt may coat the surfaces of the secondary particles of the lithium transition metal composite oxide (the positive electrode active material comprises a coating layer containing a cobalt compound which is on surfaces of the large crystal secondary particles of the nickel-based lithium metal oxide) [Kawai, 0012].
Kawai remains silent regarding the large crystal secondary particles have a hollow structure having pores therein.
Mori is directed towards a cathode active material for a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary [Mori, 0002, 0015, 0034-0037]. Mori teaches that cathode active material particles having a hollow porous structure exhibit increased specific surface area and stabilization thereof [Mori, 0007, 0113-0114], of which leads to an increased area for reaction between the particles and electrolytic solution, thereby enhancing reactivity therebetween, and resulting in increased output of batteries [Mori, 0007, 0111, 0113].
Sattar is directed towards a molybdenum modified LiNi0.84Co0.11Mn0.05O2 cathode for lithium ion batteries [Sattar, Abstract, Page 1]. Sattar teaches that molybdenum in LiNi0.84Co0.11Mn0.05O2 has a positive effect on structural stability and extraordinary electrochemical performances, including improved long-term cycling and high-rate capability [Sattar, Abstract, Pages 1-8]. Further, Mo-doping in NCM-622 can reduce the Li/Ni cation mixing, improve Li-ion diffusion, and suppress particle pulverization, thereby reducing charge transfer resistance, and resulting in improved cyclic performance [Sattar, Pages 1-2 and 4].
Kawai, Mori, Sattar, and Mendez Agudelo each constitute prior art which is directly analogous to the claimed invention – ------positive electrode active material. In view of the combined teachings of the foregoing prior art, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positive electrode active material of Kawai so that it has a hollow porous structure, in order to exhibit increased specific surface area and stabilization thereof, of which leads to an increased area for reaction between the particles and electrolytic solution, thereby enhancing reactivity therebetween, and resulting in increased output of batteries [Mori, 0007, 0111, 0113]. Additionally, in view of the teachings of Sattar, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen molybdenum as the at least one M2 elements in the lithium transition metal composite oxide formula, Lip1Nix1Coy1M1z1M2w1O2, in order to exhibit a positive effect on structural stability and extraordinary electrochemical performances, including improved long-term cycling and high-rate capability, along with reduced Li/Ni cation mixing, improved Li-ion diffusion, and suppression of particle pulverization, thereby reducing charge transfer resistance [Sattar, Abstract, Pages 1-8], wherein molybdenum present in the aforementioned M2 content amount is evidenced by Mendez Agudelo to be considered a dopant or doping metal since it is present in a minor amount [Mendez Agudelo, 0157-0168], as mentioned above in ¶20.
In accordance with the aforesaid modifications, the positive electrode active material of modified Kawai would have a hollow porous structure (the large crystal secondary particles have a hollow structure having pores therein) and the lithium transition metal composite oxide formula, Lip1Nix1Coy1M1z1M2w1O2, with M2 explicitly being at least Mo, wherein Mo is a dopant/doping metal (the large crystal secondary particles of the nickel-based lithium metal oxide are doped with molybdenum).
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the content of molybdenum defined by claim 1. Mo is in a content of 0≤w1≤0.1, of which overlaps with the claimed range, about 0.1 mol% to about 1.0 mol% with respect to a total content of 100 mol% of metals other than lithium in the positive electrode active material, thereby rendering the range obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 3, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, Kawai discloses the positive electrode active material contains secondary particles formed by aggregation of a plurality of primary particles [0010, 0042], wherein the surfaces of the secondary particles are coated with the compound containing cobalt [0012], therefore the surfaces of the plurality of primary particles necessarily comprise the coating layer containing the cobalt compound (surfaces of the plurality of primary particles comprises the coating layer containing the cobalt compound).
Regarding claim 6, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, modified Kawai teaches the cobalt compound in the compound containing cobalt that coats the surfaces of the secondary particles of the lithium transition metal composite oxide is, inter alia cobalt oxide (in the coating layer containing the cobalt compound, the cobalt compound comprises cobalt oxide) [Kawai, 0063].
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the nickel-based lithium metal oxide defined by claim 9. Modified Kawai teaches that the lithium transition metal composite oxide has a layered structure with a hexagonal crystal structure represented by the following formula: Lip1Nix1Coy1M1z1M2w1O2, wherein 0.95≤p1≤1.5, 0.3≤x1≤1, 0≤y1≤0.5, 0≤z1≤0.5, 0≤w1≤0.1, and x1+y1+z1+w1≤1, and wherein M1 may denote at least one of Mn and Al, and M2 may denote at least one selected from the group consisting of B, Na, Mg, Si, P, S, K, Ca, Ti, V, Cr, Fe, Cu, Zn, Ga, Sr, Y, Zr, Nb, Mo, In, Sn, Ba, La, Ce, Nd, Sm, Eu, Gd, Lu, Ta, W, and Bi, and may denote at least one selected from the group consisting of Zr, Ti, Mg, Ta, Nb, Mo, and W [Kawai, 0058, 0092-0096], of which, in totality, reads on the claimed Formula 1 in its entirety, wherein the element content ranges overlap with their respective claimed element content range, thereby rendering each element content range obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the nickel-based lithium metal oxide defined by claim 10. Modified Kawai teaches that the lithium transition metal composite oxide has a layered structure with a hexagonal crystal structure represented by the following formula: Lip1Nix1Coy1M1z1M2w1O2, wherein 0.95≤p1≤1.5, 0.3≤x1≤1, 0≤y1≤0.5, 0≤z1≤0.5, 0≤w1≤0.1, and x1+y1+z1+w1≤1, and wherein M1 may denote at least one of Mn and Al, and M2 may denote at least one selected from the group consisting of B, Na, Mg, Si, P, S, K, Ca, Ti, V, Cr, Fe, Cu, Zn, Ga, Sr, Y, Zr, Nb, Mo, In, Sn, Ba, La, Ce, Nd, Sm, Eu, Gd, Lu, Ta, W, and Bi, and may denote at least one selected from the group consisting of Zr, Ti, Mg, Ta, Nb, Mo, and W [Kawai, 0058, 0092-0096], of which, in totality, reads on the claimed Formula 2 in its entirety, wherein the element content ranges overlap with their respective claimed element content range, thereby rendering each element content range obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 13, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, modified Kawai teaches the positive electrode active material contains secondary particles formed by aggregation of a plurality of primary particles containing a lithium transition metal composite oxide [Kawai, 0010, 0042], wherein the lithium transition metal composite oxide has a layered structure and has a hexagonal crystal structure (the large crystal secondary particles comprise one or two single crystal primary particle layers) [Kawai, 0058].
Regarding claim 23, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated herein by reference (not repeated for sake of brevity), modified Kawai teaches that the positive electrode (a positive electrode) [Kawai, 0011, 0055, 0119, 0121, 0146, 0149-0150], comprises a collector (a positive electrode current collector)[Kawai, 0117], and a positive electrode active material layer disposed on the collector (a positive electrode active material layer on the positive electrode current collector) [Kawai, 0117], of which contains the positive electrode active material for a nonaqueous secondary battery as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1 (the positive electrode active material layer comprises the positive electrode active material as claimed in claim 1) [Kawai, 0117], wherein the positive electrode active material contains secondary particles formed by aggregation of a plurality of primary particles containing a lithium transition metal composite oxide of the same composition (and at least one selected from single particles having a same composition as the positive electrode active material, and aggregates thereof) [Kawai, 0010, 0042].
Regarding claim 25, modified Kawai teaches the positive electrode set forth above in the rejection of claim 23. Modified Kawai teaches that the positive electrode comprises the positive electrode active material layer [Kawai, 0011, 0055, 0117, 0119, 0121, 0146, 0149-0150]. The secondary particles containing the lithium transition metal composite oxide constituting the positive electrode active material has a first region and a second region in the vicinity of the surface of the positive electrode active material [Kawai, 0023]. The first region is located at a depth of around 150 nm from the surface of the secondary particle, and the second region is located at a depth of 10 nm or less from the surface of the secondary particle [Kawai, 0023-0024]. More specifically, the depth of the first region from the surface of the secondary particle may be, for example, in a range of 140 nm to 160 nm [Kawai, 0024], while the depth of the second region from the surface of the secondary particle may be, for example, in a range of 5 nm to 15 nm [Kawai, 0024], thereby, in totality, including the modification set forth above in the rejection of claim 1, reading on the positive electrode active material layer comprises a center portion adjacent to the positive electrode current collector comprising a greater amount of the positive active material, which has a hollow structure, than in a surface portion, as claimed.
Regarding claim 26, in view of the rejection of claim 23 above, modified Kawai teaches the positive electrode active material contains secondary particles formed by aggregation of a plurality of primary particles containing a lithium transition metal composite oxide [Kawai, 0010, 0042], wherein the lithium transition metal composite oxide has a layered structure and has a hexagonal crystal structure (the large crystal secondary particles comprise one or two single crystal primary particle layers) [Kawai, 0058]. A positive electrode active material layer is formed by applying a positive electrode composition obtained by mixing the positive electrode active material, a conductive material, a binder, etc. together with a solvent onto the collector and performing a drying treatment or a pressure treatment [Kawai, 0118-0120], thereby reading on one or two positive electrode active material layers, as claimed.
Regarding claim 27, the rejection of claim 23 above is incorporated herein by reference (not repeated for sake of brevity), modified Kawai teaches the nonaqueous electrolyte lithium-ion secondary battery (lithium secondary battery) [Kawai, 0010, 0117, 0119, 0121, 0149-0150] comprising the positive electrode as set forth above in the rejection of claim 23, the negative electrode and the nonaqueous electrolyte disposed therebetween (a negative electrode; and an electrolyte interposed therebetween) [Kawai, 0010, 0117, 0119, 0121, 0149-0150].
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawai in view of Mori and Sattar, evidenced by Mendez Agudelo, as applied to claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 above, further in view of Yura et al. (US 2012/0258358 A1; “Yura”). Claims 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawai in view of Mori and Sattar, evidenced by Mendez Agudelo, as applied to claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 above, further in view of Yura et al. (US 2012/0258358 A1; “Yura”).
Regarding claim 7, Kawai in view of Mori and Sattar, evidenced by Mendez Agudelo (hereinafter “modified Kawai”) teaches the positive electrode active material set forth above in the rejection of claim 6.
Modified Kawai remains silent regarding the coating layer containing the cobalt compound further comprises at least one selected from boron, manganese, phosphorus, aluminum, zinc, zirconium, and titanium.
Yura is directed towards a cathode active material layer for a lithium secondary battery [0001, 0006-0007]. Yura teaches that the cathode active material layer comprises cathode active material that is made of a lithium composite oxide [0016]. The cathode active material further includes a coating [0159], of which may comprise alumina, zirconia, alumina fluoride, and the like, which are chemically stable; materials such as lithium cobaltate excellent in diffusibility of lithium; and carbon excellent in electron conductivity [0159].
Kawai, Mori, Sattar, Mendez Agudelo, and Yura each constitute prior art which is directly analogous to the claimed invention – ------positive electrode active material. In view of the combined teachings of the foregoing prior art, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the positive electrode active material of Kawai so that the coating layer includes a material such as alumina, zirconia, alumina fluoride, and the like, which are chemically stable, in order to exhibit improved thermal stability and chemical stability of the positive electrode active material, thereby improving rate characteristics of the battery [Yura, 0159].
Regarding claim 8, modified Kawai teaches the positive electrode active material set forth above in the rejection of claim 1.
Modified Kawai remains silent regarding the pores inside the positive electrode material have a size of about 2 μm to about 7 μm.
Yura is directed towards a cathode active material for a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary [0001, 0006-0007]. Yura teaches that cathode active material particles having a porous structure exhibit satisfactory electron conduction and lithium ion diffusion pathways (in particular, an electron conduction pathway) in secondary grains [Yura, 0038-0041, 0066], of which leads to improved cell characteristics such as improved charge-discharged characteristics and resistance not excessively increasing [Yura, 0006, 0035, 0038, 0066]. The cathode active material particles have an average pore size of 0.1 μm or more and 5 μm or less [0007, 0034-0041, 0063, 0065-0066, 0083-0085]. When the average pore size is more than 5 μm, relatively large pores are generated, thereby resulting in the amount per volume of the cathode active material contributing to charge-discharge being reduced [0041, 0084]. Further, stress concentration is more liable to occur in a local area of each of such large pores, and an effect of uniformly releasing a stress in the inside is hardly obtained [0084]. On the other hand, when the average pore size is less than 0.1 μm, it becomes difficult to incorporate a conductive material and an electrolyte in the pores, and a stress releasing effect of the pores is not sufficiently obtained [0084]. Thus, an effect of improving charge-discharge characteristics while maintaining a high capacity may not be expected [0084].
Kawai, Mori, Sattar, Mendez Agudelo, and Yura each constitute prior art which is directly analogous to the claimed invention – ------positive electrode active material. In view of the combined teachings of the foregoing prior art, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the positive electrode active material of Kawai so that the hollow porous structure has an average pore size of 0.1 μm or more and 5 μm or less, in order to exhibit excellent lithium ion conductivity and electron conductivity in the secondary particles [Yura, 0034-0041, 0063, 0065-0066, 0083-0085]. The aforementioned range overlaps with the claimed range, about 2 μm to about 7 μm, thereby rendering the range obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 11, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the primary particle size and secondary particle size defined by claim 11. The primary particles have an average particle diameter of 0.1 μm to 1.5 μm [Kawai, 0021], of which is substantially similar to the claimed range, about 2 μm to about 4 μm, thereby rendering the range obvious, see MPEP 2144.05(I), wherein “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close”. The secondary particles have a volume average particle diameter of 1 μm to 30 μm [Kawai, 0020], of which overlaps with the claimed range, about 12 μm to about 18 μm, thereby rendering the range obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Additionally, Yura, which is directed towards a cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery [Yura, 0001, 0006-0007], teaches an average grain size of primary grains being between 0.01 μm to 5 μm [Yura, 0008, 00039-0041, 0061, 0065, 0074-0076]. If the average grain size of primary grains is less than 0.1 μm, the number of the primary grains present around the pores becomes too large, and grain boundary resistance becomes too large, thereby resulting in reductions in output characteristic and rate characteristic [Yura, 0040, 0074-0075]. If the average grain size of primary grains is more than 5 μm, the number of contact points between the primary grains present around the pores becomes small, and electron conduction and lithium ion diffusion pathways (in particular, an electron conduction pathway) are hardly secured, thereby resulting in a reduction in output characteristic [Yura, 0041, 0074, 0076].
Kawai, Mori, Sattar, Mendez Agudelo, and Yura each constitute prior art which is directly analogous to the claimed invention – ------positive electrode active material. In view of the combined teachings of the foregoing prior art, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that a primary particle size at the upper range of Kawai’s range, 1.5 μm [Kawai, 0021], would have been substantially similar to the claimed range, as Yura bridges the gap between the claimed primary particle size and that of Kawai, and therefore teaches that a primary particle size of 1.5 μm is still sufficient to obtain the predictable results of improved output characteristic and rate characteristic [Yura, 00039-0041, 0074-0076].
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawai in view of Mori and Sattar, evidenced by Mendez Agudelo, as applied to claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 above, further in view of Oda et al. (US 2016/0172674 A1; “Oda”).
Regarding claim 12, modified Kawai discloses the positive electrode active material set forth above in the rejection of claim 1.
Modified Kawai remains silent regarding a peak intensity ratio (I(003)/I(104)) of the positive electrode active material measured through X-ray diffraction analysis is in a range of about 1.2 to about 4.0, and an area ratio (A(003)/A(104)) is in a range of about 1.1 to about 1.4.
Oda is directed towards a cathode active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary, comprising lithium composite oxide particles with a layered structure of hexagonal crystals [0001, 0018-0019, 0050, 0055]. Oda teaches lithium composite oxide particles wherein the ratio of the crystallite size found from the half peak value (half peak width: FWHM) of the diffraction peak at plane (104) with respect to the crystallite size found from the half peak width of the diffraction peak at plane (003) of the Miller indices (hkl) in powder X-ray diffraction that uses CuKα rays is greater than 0 and less than 0.60 [0045-0053], therefore, through calculation, the inverse of the ratio is 1.67 or greater.
Kawai, Mori, Sattar, Mendez Agudelo, and Oda each constitute prior art which is directly analogous to the claimed invention – ------positive electrode active material. In view of the combined teachings of the foregoing prior art, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the positive electrode active material of Kawai so that the FWHM(003)/FWHM(104) ratio range is 1.67 or greater, in order for the diffusion length for lithium ions to become shorter, thereby decreasing the cathode resistance and improving the output characteristics of the secondary battery [Oda, 0050-0054].
In view thereof, the ------positive electrode active material of modified Kawai is substantially identical or identical to the claimed and disclosed ------positive electrode active material in Applicant's specification in terms of comprising:
a hollow porous structure, of which corresponds to the claimed and disclosed hollow structure having pores therein [Claim 1, Applicant’s Specification ¶0082, 0121], wherein
the hollow porous structure has an average pore size of 0.1 μm or more and 5 μm or less, of which overlaps with the claimed and disclosed range [Claim 8, Applicant’s Specification ¶0094], wherein
secondary particles are formed by aggregation of a plurality of primary particles containing a lithium transition metal composite oxide, represented by the following formula: Lip1Nix1Coy1M1z1M2w1O2, with molybdenum as the doped M2 element, of which corresponds to the claimed and disclosed nickel-based lithium metal oxide [Claims 1, 9 and 10, Applicant’s Specification ¶0086, 0103-0110], wherein
the lithium transition metal composite oxide has a layered structure and a crystal structure, of which corresponds to the claimed and disclosed structure [Claims 1 and 13, Applicant’s Specification ¶0081, 0089-0091], wherein
the primary particles have an average particle diameter of 0.1 μm to 1.5 μm, of which overlaps with the claimed and disclosed range [Claim 1, Applicant’s Specification ¶0083, 0094], and the secondary particles have a volume average particle diameter of 1 μm to 30 μm, of which overlaps with the claimed and disclosed range [Claim 1, Applicant’s Specification ¶0083, 0094] (MPEP 2144.05(I)), with
a compound containing cobalt may coat the surfaces of the secondary particles of the lithium transition metal composite oxide, of which corresponds to the claimed and disclosed coating layer [Claim 1, Applicant’s Specification ¶0098-0090], and
the positive electrode active material has a FWHM(003)/FWHM(104) ratio range of 1.67 or greater.
Given that the ------positive electrode active material of modified Kawai is substantially identical or identical to the claimed and disclosed ------positive electrode active material in terms of the foregoing elements (a)-(g), it stands to reason, and there is a strong expectation, that the ------positive electrode active material of modified Kawai would have necessarily exhibited a peak intensity ratio (I(003)/I(104)) of the positive electrode active material measured through X-ray diffraction analysis in a range of about 1.2 to about 4.0, and an area ratio (A(003)/A(104)) in a range of about 1.1 to about 1.4, as claimed, absent a showing of factually supported objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112(V); MPEP 2112.01(I) and (II); MPEP 2145; and MPEP 2145(I). "Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established”. The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawai in view of Mori and Sattar, evidenced by Mendez Agudelo, as applied to claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 above, further in view of Fang et al. (US 2015/0311522 A1; “Fang”).
Regarding claim 4, Kawai in view of Mori and Sattar, evidenced by Mendez Agudelo (hereinafter “modified Kawai”) teaches the positive electrode active material set forth above in the rejection of claim 1.
Modified Kawai remains silent regarding a content of the cobalt compound in the coating layer containing the cobalt compound is in a range of about 0.1 mol% to about 5.0 mol% with respect to a total content of the positive electrode active material.
Fang is directed towards a positive active material for a lithium ion battery [0002, 0008]. Fang teaches that the positive active material comprises a coating layer of lithium containing transition metal phosphate [0009-0014, 0020]. The coating layer may contain cobalt [0009], wherein a mass content of the lithium containing transition metal phosphate in the total positive active material is about 0.01% to 30%, and preferably 0.1% to 5.0% [0021].
Kawai, Mori, Sattar, Mendez Agudelo, and Fang each constitute prior art which is directly analogous to the claimed invention – ------positive electrode active material. In view of the combined teachings of the foregoing prior art, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the positive electrode active material of Kawai so that the cobalt compound in the coating layer in the total positive electrode active material is in a content of about 0.01% to 30%, and preferably 0.1% to 5.0%, in order to exhibit less transition metal having the valence of +4 at the surface of the lithium transition metal composite oxide, which will reduce the catalyzing and oxidizing ability of the positive electrode active material, and reduce decomposition of the nonaqueous electrolyte, thereby remarkably improving the lithium ion conductivity, structural stability, and cycling performance of the positive electrode active material [Fang, 0011-0014]. The aforementioned ranges, through calculation, would necessarily overlap with the claimed range, about 0.1 mol% to about 5.0 mol% with respect to a total content of the positive electrode active material, thereby rendering the range obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 5, modified Kawai teaches the positive electrode active material set forth above in the rejection of claim 1.
Modified Kawai remains silent regarding the coating layer containing the cobalt compound has a thickness of about 1 nm to about 50 nm.
Fang is directed towards a positive active material for a lithium ion battery [0002, 0008] comprising a core made of lithium containing transition metal oxide [0009]. Fang teaches that the positive active material comprises a coating layer of lithium containing transition metal phosphate [0009-0014, 0020]. The coating layer may contain cobalt [0009], wherein the coating layer of lithium containing transition metal phosphate has a thickness of 1nm to 500 nm, preferably 1 nm to 300 nm [0020]. If the thickness of the coating layer is less than 0.1 nm, the coating layer cannot coat and protect the lithium containing transition metal oxide core [0020]. If the thickness of the coating layer is more than 500 nm, the electrons cannot pass through the coating layer, and the positive active material is electively insulating material, therefore, it does not have electrochemical activity [0020].
Kawai, Mori, Sattar, Mendez Agudelo, and Fang each constitute prior art which is directly analogous to the claimed invention – ------positive electrode active material. In view of the combined teachings of the foregoing prior art, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the positive electrode active material of Kawai so that the coating layer containing the cobalt compound has a thickness of 1nm to 500 nm, preferably 1 nm to 300 nm, in order to exhibit less transition metal having the valence of +4 at the surface of the lithium transition metal composite oxide, which will reduce the catalyzing and oxidizing ability of the positive electrode active material, and reduce decomposition of the nonaqueous electrolyte, thereby remarkably improving the lithium ion conductivity, structural stability, and cycling performance of the positive electrode active material [Fang, 0011-0014], wherein one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the thickness may be optimized in order to exhibit the predictable characteristics, so that the coating layer may coat and protect the lithium transition metal composite oxide, wherein electrons are able to pass through the coating layer, thereby allowing for electrochemical activity [Fang, 0020] (MPEP 2144.05(II)). The aforementioned ranges overlap with the claimed range, about 1 nm to about 50 nm, thereby rendering the range obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawai in view of Mori and Sattar, evidenced by Mendez Agudelo, as applied to claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 above, further in view of Okamura et al. (US 2010/0209763 A1; “Okamura”).
Regarding claim 24, Kawai in view of Mori and Sattar, evidenced by Mendez Agudelo (hereinafter “modified Kawai”) teaches the positive electrode set forth above in the rejection of claim 23.
Modified Kawai remains silent regarding a surface portion of the positive electrode comprises single crystal single particles in a greater amount than in a center portion adjacent to the positive electrode current collector.
However, modified Kawai teaches that the lithium transition metal composite oxide has a hexagonal crystal structure [Kawai, 0058]. The positive electrode active material layer is formed by applying a positive electrode composition obtained by mixing the positive electrode active material, a conductive material, a binder, etc. together with a solvent onto the collector and performing a drying treatment or a pressure treatment [Kawai, 0118-0120].
Okamura is directed towards a positive electrode of a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery [0066] comprising a positive electrode active material [0071] made of lithium transition metal composite oxides [0072-0076]. Okamura teaches a method for producing an electrode for the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery comprising applying an electrode mixture paste to a current collector and compressing the coating to partially crush the first active material particles, so that second active material particles (aggregates/crushed particles) are formed and packed so as to close gaps [0019, 0023, 0036, 0048-0049].
Kawai, Mori, Sattar, Mendez Agudelo, and Okamura each constitute prior art which is directly analogous to the claimed invention – ------positive electrode active material. In view of the combined teachings of the foregoing prior art, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the positive electrode active material of Kawai so that the lithium transition metal composite oxide primary particles having a hexagonal crystal structure, are partially crushed so that the secondary particles are formed and packed so as to close gaps, thereby achieving a higher packing rate than conventional methods [Okamura, 0019, 0023-0027, 0048-0050, 0125-0133]. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that during the mechanical pressing or rolling of an electrode mixture paste on a substrate, the compressive stress is applied at an outer surface [Okamura, 0048-0059]; and consequently, the degree of particle crushing and the resulting concentration of single crystal single particles would necessarily be in a greater amount in the surface portion of the positive electrode than in a central portion adjacent to the positive electrode current collector, as claimed, absent a showing of factually supported objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112(V); MPEP 2112.01(I) and (II); MPEP 2145; and MPEP 2145(I), wherein the particles closer to the positive electrode current collector are relatively shielded from the primary stress of the pressing [Okamura, 0051-0059].
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3-13, and 23-27 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 6-12, 22, and 24-27 of the most recent claim set filed 3 August 2026 of copending Application No. 17/820,420 (see the notice of allowance dated 31 August 2026), in view of Sattar et al. (Scientific Reports (2020) 10:8562; “Sattar”). Mendez Agudelo et al. (US 2021/0098782 A1; “Mendez Agudelo”) is relied upon as an evidentiary reference in support of the provisional double patenting rejection. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the application claims encompass the subject matter of the instant claims (see MPEP 804(II)(B)).
The difference between the claim sets lies in the fact that the entire scope of the present claims falls within the scope of the copending claims. Thus, the present claims are in effect a “species” of the “generic” invention of the copending claims.
Specifically, the claim sets are identical with the exception that the species of the present claims additionally require that the large crystal secondary particles of the nickel-based lithium metal oxide are doped with molybdenum, as recited in the instant claim 1.
Sattar is directed towards a molybdenum modified LiNi0.84Co0.11Mn0.05O2 crystal cathode for lithium ion batteries [Sattar, Abstract, Page 1]. Sattar teaches that molybdenum in LiNi0.84Co0.11Mn0.05O2 has a positive effect on structural stability and extraordinary electrochemical performances, including improved long-term cycling and high-rate capability [Sattar, Abstract, Pages 1-8]. Further, Mo-doping in NCM-622 can reduce the Li/Ni cation mixing, improve Li-ion diffusion, and suppress particle pulverization, thereby reducing charge transfer resistance, and resulting in improved cyclic performance [Sattar, Pages 1-2 and 4].
Mendez Agudelo evidences that one or more metals M in the following cathode active material formula Li1+e(NiaCobMncMd)1−eO2, are called “dopants” or “doping metal” since they are usually present at minor amounts, e.g. at maximum 10 mol% M or at maximum 5 mol% M or at maximum 1 mol% based on the total amount of metal except lithium present in a transition metal oxide [Mendez Agudelo, 0157-0168].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have the nickel-based lithium metal oxide doped with molybdenum, in order to reduce the Li/Ni cation mixing, improve Li-ion diffusion, and suppress particle pulverization, thereby reducing charge transfer resistance, and resulting in improved cyclic performance [Sattar, Pages 1-2 and 4]. Additionally, it would have been obvious for the secondary particles to be crystal, like that of Sattar, as there are a finite number of particle types (MPEP 2143(I)(E)).
Furthermore, given that the crystal secondary particles defined by claim 1 does not define or imply any requisite degree for being “large” such that any degree of size reads thereon (MPEP 2111, MPEP 2111.01, and MPEP 2173.01(I)), the aforementioned, in totality, reads on large crystal secondary particles, as claimed.
Additionally, it is noted that the transitional term "comprising", used in the copending Application, which is synonymous with "including," "containing," or "characterized by," is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps MPEP 2111.03(I).
Moreover, the primary particle size range and the secondary particle size range each overlap with their respective instant claimed range, thereby rendering each range obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Pertinent Prior Art
The following constitutes a list of prior art which are not relied upon herein, but are considered pertinent to the claimed invention and/or written description thereof. The prior art are purposely made of record hereinafter to facilitate compact/expedient prosecution, and consideration thereof is respectfully suggested.
Yoon et al., US 7479352 B2 – teaches molybdenum doped into a lithium metal oxide [col. 7], and teaches that Mo is used as it has an ionic diameter that is more compatible with other metals [col. 3 ln. 33-56].
Park et al., US 2019/0006669 A1 – teaches an oxide coating layer on a lithium-containing metal oxide that may comprise one or more of, inter alia cobalt and boron [0083-0086].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA X. COLTON whose telephone number is (571)272-2210. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM.
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at (571)272-8935. 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.
/JENNA X. COLTON/Examiner, Art Unit 1782
/MICHAEL C. ROMANOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights