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 1-10 in the reply filed on July 12, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 11-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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.
Claims 1-10 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.
Claim 1 recites “a composition formula of the positive electrode active material is Li1+xNiyMzMn2-x-y-zO4-k”, however k is not defined in the claim limitation. K is defined in the dependent claim 4. For the purposes of this examination, k is defined as 0 ≤ k ≤ 0.1.
Claims 2, 4, 5, 8, and 9 and 10 are indefinite as they use the term “optionally” to point to alternative narrower ranges that fall within a broader range in the same claim. For the purposes of this exam the broader range will be used as the claim limitation.
Claim 7 recites the claim limitation “wherein the lithium nickel manganese oxide positive electrode active material is single crystal and/or single crystal-like particles”. This phrase “single crystal-like” is indefinite because the intended scope is unclear. For the purposes of this exam, the claim limitation will be interpreted as “wherein the lithium nickel manganese oxide positive electrode active material is single crystal particles”.
Claims 3 and 6 are rejected as containing the unclear language of the parent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (CN104051709A).
Claim 1-4: Liu teaches lithium-ion positive electrode materials (i.e., active material) of the general formula LiMn2-xMxO4 wherein 0.001<x<1.999, M is a transition metal element including LiNi0.5Mn1.5O4 (Page 3 para 9-10, Page 8 para 2). This compound anticipates the composition formula Li1+xNiyMzMn2-x-y-zO4-k wherein x=0, y=0.5, z=0 and k=0 (Page 16 para 5, Page 17 para 1). Thus, the first cycle charging curve of a half battery comprising this compound in the positive electrode active material would be expected to show a ratio of a charging capacity of 3.5 V – 4.4V to a charging capacity of 3.5V-4.95V, A, would be in the range 0.07≤A≤0.15 such that 0≤kA≤0.015 and 0.11≤k+A≤0.18. This is further confirmed by the charging curve disclosed by Lee for the first charging and discharging performance test of the button battery prepared by using the LiNi0.5Mn1.5O4 positive electrode material (Fig. 4) (Page 6 para 6, Page 17 para 1), wherein the charging curve shows the capacity change over the voltage in the ranges 3.5 V – 4.4V and 3.5V-4.95V meet the requirements of the claim.
Claim 7: Liu teaches the active material is prepared as a single crystal (Page 11 para 3 and 7).
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yi et al. (CN102364731A).
Claim 1-6: Yi teaches a cathode material (positive electrode active material for a lithium-ion battery containing a lithium transition metal composite oxide having a spinel comprising LiMn1.425Ni0.525Nb0.05O4 (Page 1 para 2 and 4). This compound anticipates the claimed composition formula Li1+xNiyMzMn2-x-y-zO4-k . Thus, the first cycle charging curve of a half battery comprising this compound in the positive electrode active material would be expected to show a ratio of a charging capacity of 3.5 V – 4.4V to a charging capacity of 3.5V-4.95V, A, would be in the range 0.07≤A≤0.15 such that 0≤kA≤0.015 and 0.11≤k+A≤0.18. This is further confirmed by the first charging curve disclosed by Yi (Fig. 3) (Page 3 para 4-6), wherein the charging curve shows the capacity change over the voltage in the ranges 3.5 V – 4.4V and 3.5v to 4.95V meet the requirements of the claim.
Claim 7: Yi teaches the compound LiMn1.425Ni0.525Nb0.05O4 is synthesized as a pure phase, without any other miscellaneous phases, and has high crystallinity (i.e., single crystal) (Page 3 para 6).
Claim 8: Yi teaches the particle size of the compound is in the range 1 µm to 5 µm depending on the reaction temperature (Page 3 para 6-8, Claim, Page 2 para 10).
Claim 9: As described above active material compound LiMn1.425Ni0.525Nb0.05O4 anticipates the composition formula in claim 1. Thus, the active material is expected to fulfil the relationship 0.06 ≤ (k+A)/(DV500.3) ≤ 0.12.
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yi et al. (CN102364731A), and further in view of Kawasaki et al. (US 20190097226 A1).
Claim 10: As described above, Yi teaches a lithium transition metal composite oxide cathode material comprising lithium, manganese, nickel and niobium, wherein the compound is a unform phase crystalline compound. Ti further teaches this material has
excellent rate performance and stable cycle life (Page 2 para 10). Yi does not teach more than 80% of the niobium is located within a first 50% volume of the particles.
However, Kawasaki teaches a positive electrode active material for a non-aqueous secondary battery containing a lithium transition metal composite oxide having a spinel comprising Li1.1Ni0.5Mn1.49Nb0.01O4 [0066]. Kawasaki teaches in the surface region containing niobium as a solid solution, a mole ratio of an amount of niobium to an amount of nickel and manganese in the surface region decreases according to a distance from a surface in a depth direction from the surface to a distance of 0.3 nm in the depth direction [0005], and the core region substantially not containing niobium is continuously formed in the lithium transition metal composite oxide [0013]. Kawasaki teaches that a coating layer of niobium on active material generally improves cycle properties of a battery but a gradual outward increase in concentration of niobium on the surface of the particles also improves the output characteristics as compared to when niobium is present in the entire core region or in a coating layer on the surface. Kawasaki teaches this is because when the concentration of niobium increases outwardly, the surface region acts not only as a protective region for electrolyte but also as a region facilitating diffusion of lithium [0013].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have optimized Yi’s the cathode active material by varying the concentration of niobium in the particles such that the concentration of niobium decreases in a radial direction from a surface layer of the particles of the positive electrode active material to its geometric center to improve the output characteristics of the battery comprising the active material.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Li et al. (CN102420320A) teaches positive electrode active material, LiNi0.5TixMn1.5-xO4 wherein 0<x≤0.5 (Page 3 para 5).
Mao et al. (ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2016, 8, 9116−9124) teaches Nb-doped and Cr-doped lithium nickel manganese oxide compound LiMn1.49Ni0.49Nb0.02O4 and LiMn1.4Ni0.4Cr0.2O4 with a good Li-ion diffusion coefficient at room temperature and improved cycling performance and coulombic efficiency compared to the undoped active material (See page 9123 para 1).
Yi et al. (Journal of Power Sources 211 (2012) 59-65) teaches Nb-doped lithium nickel manganese oxide compound LiMn1.425Ni0.525Nb0.05O4 with a good Li-ion diffusion coefficient at room temperature and improved cycling performance compared to the undoped active material (See page 64 para 4).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINAH RUSERE whose telephone number is (571)272-9954. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/L.N.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1712
/MICHAEL B CLEVELAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights