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 18-29) in the reply filed on 08/04/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 19-26 are objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 1 of claims 19-26 “Positive electrode active material” should read “The positive electrode active material”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 27-29 are objected to because of the following informalities: “comprising a positive electrode active material according to claim 18” should read “comprising the positive electrode active material according to claim 18”. 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.
Claims 21, 22 and 23 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 21 recites the broad recitation “AlB/V is lower than 250.0”, and the claim also recites “lower than 200.0” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation & claim 22 recites the broad recitation “WB/W is higher than 10.0”, and the claim also recites “higher than 21.0” and “higher than 22.0” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation & claim 23 recites the broad recitation “WB/W is lower than 150.0” and the claim also recites “lower than 100.0” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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.
Claims 18-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuichi et al. (US 2018226646 A1, “Furuichi”) in view of Sun et al. (WO 2021006520 A1, “Sun”, equivalent US 20220271283 A1 used herein for citation purposes), Mane et al. (US 20160260962 A1, “Mane”), Park et al. (Park et al. “Atomic Layer deposition of Al-W-Fluoride…”, “Park1”), and Park et al. (Park et al. “Tungsten doping for stabilization…”, “Park2”).
Regarding claim 18, Furuichi discloses a positive electrode active material for solid-state batteries, wherein the positive electrode active material comprises Li, M’, and oxygen (see abstract “positive electrode active material” & “secondary battery” & “LiaNi1-x-yCoxMyWzO2+α), wherein M’ comprises: Ni in a content x between 50.0 mol% and 95.0 mol%, relative to M’ (see abstract “where 0≤x≤0.35, 0≤y≤0.35” which describes a composition of 1-0.35-0 = 0.65 which lies within the claimed range when x is 0.35 and y is 0); Co in a content y between 0.0 mol% and 40.0 mol%, relative to M’ (see abstract “0≤x≤0.35” which lies within the claimed range when x = 0.35); Mn in a content of z between 0.0 mol% and 70.0 mol%, relative to M’ (see abstract “M is at least one element selected from Mn” & “My” in chemical formula & describes “0≤y≤0.35” & when y is 0.35 lies within the claimed range); Al in a content v between 0.1 mol% and 3.0 mol% (see abstract “Al” & “My” in chemical formula & describes “0≤y≤0.35” which overlaps the claimed range); W in a content w between 0.05 mol% and 2.0 mol% (see abstract “Wz” & “0.0008≤z≤0.030” & “the amount of W contained in the compound is such that the number of atoms of W is 0.08 to 0.30 at% with respect to the total number of atoms of Ni, Co, and M contained in the positive electrode active material” which overlaps the claimed range). Furuichi discloses polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) in [0136] which describes a content of F is present, however, Furuichi does not explicitly disclose F in a content f lower than 2.0 mol%.
Park1 teaches fluoride content (see abstract “AlWxFy” & see P3725 col 2 par 3 “all coated LiCoO2 particles and electrodes showed excellent capacity retention compared to uncoated LiCoO2” & see P3727 par 1 “AlWxFy coatings, on both powders and laminates, exhibited consistent capacities at both 4.4 and 4.5 V. It is also expected that the coatings provide superior rate capabilities than uncoated LiCoO2 owing to the absence of electrolyte oxidative products during high voltage of operation as reported earlier” & “these data reveal the superior performance of the AlWxFy coatings on particles and laminates compared with that of Al2O3 coatings”).
Furuichi and Park1 are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely cathode materials (see Park1 title).
Therefore, 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 incorporate AlWxFy coatings on particles as suggested by Park1 (see abstract & P3725 col 2 par 3 & P3727 par 1) into the positive electrode active material of Furuichi because doing so provides excellent capacity retention as suggested by Park1 (see P3725 col 2 par 3).
Regarding the limitation and elements other than Li, O, Ni, Co, Mn, Al, W and F in a content q less than 3.0 mol%, relative to M’, Furuichi discloses in [0110] “When only solid-liquid separation is performed, the concentration of tungsten in the alkaline solution (W) is adjusted such that the concentration of tungsten calculated by adding the water content included in the lithium-metal composite oxide particles to the alkaline solution (W) is not less than 0.05 mol/L” which describes water content is not less than 0.05 mol/L which lies within the claimed range).
Regarding the limitation wherein x, y, z, v, w and q are measured by ICP and wherein f is measured by IC; wherein (x+y+z+v+w+f+q)=100.0 mol%; Furuichi discloses “the composition of the obtained positive electrode active material was analyzed by the ICP method” in [0184]. Furuichi does not explicitly disclose f is measured by IC, however, 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 measure f with IC because IC is a common measuring technique to measure f content.
Regarding the limitation wherein the positive electrode active material has ratios AlB/V > 25.0 and WB/W>5.0, wherein AlB and WB are determined by XPS analysis, wherein AlB and WB are expressed as mol% compared to the sum of Ni, Co, Mn, Al, W, and F, as measured by XPS analysis, Furuichi does not explicitly disclose XPS analysis, however, a skilled artisan would recognize XPS as a common measuring technique to determine surface composition.
Park1 teaches XPS studies (see abstract “improving cycle life through mitigation of surface-induced capacity losses” & see P3728 reference 4 describes “XPS studies” which reads on surface measurement techniques). Park1 teaches on P3728 par 1 AlF3 which describes 0.23 mol% F.
Regarding the limitation AlB, Furuichi discloses Al composition measured by ICP (see [0184] “composition of the obtained positive electrode active material was analyzed by the ICP method, and it was confirmed that the molar ratio of Li:Ni:Co:Al was 0.990:0.910:0.060:0.030, and that the tungsten content was 0.15 at % with respect to the total number of atoms of Ni, Co, and Al.” which describes 0.030 of Al & Abstract describes composition of Mn 0.35 which describes AlB=(0.030/(0.910+0.35+0.060+0.030+0.15+0.23)) =0.015 & 0.35/0.015 = 23.3 which is close to the claimed range of >25.0.
The amount of Al disclosed by Furuichi is close to the claimed range and similar properties are expected. It is the Office’s position that the values are close enough that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected similar properties. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding the limitation WB/W >5.0, Furuichi discloses 0.15 at % of W (see [0184] measured using ICP) which describes WB = 0.15/(0.910+0.35+0.060+0.030+0.15+0.23) = 0.073 & 0.15/0.073 = 2.05 which is close to the claimed range of >5.0.
The amount of W disclosed by Furuichi is close to the claimed range and similar properties are expected. It is the Office’s position that the values are close enough that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected similar properties. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05.
Mane teaches atomic concentration % of C, O, F, Al, Si, and W depends on the sputter depth (see FIG. 8) & in FIG. 5 describes XPS spectrum of tungsten in the AlWxFy film. Mane teaches “to enhance the stability of the Li-ion electrodes” (see abstract). Mane teaches WF6 in [0024] & XPS in [0026].
Furuichi and Mane analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely batteries and cathode coating (see Mane title & [0006]).
Therefore, 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 incorporate XPS measurements as suggested by Mane (see FIG. 8) because Mane suggests atomic concentration % depends on sputter depth. Further doing so allows for the enhanced stability of the electrodes, as suggested by Mane (see abstract).
Park2 teaches in P2 par 1 “Recently, we reported that W doping can overcome the inherent structural instability of LiNiO2 and considerably improve its cycling stability and thermal properties without compromising the capacity” & teaches in P7 “The W doping of the NCM90 cathode effectively protected its surface from the chemical attack during the prolonged exposure to the electrolyte at an elevated temperature so that the particle integrity was well preserved even after 15 days of aging”.
Furuichi and Park2 are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely cathode materials for batteries (see Park2 title).
Sun teaches co-doping (see [0110] “co-doping element” & “W” & see [0015] describes a primary particle with Ni, Mn, and Co, Al & 65 mol% or greater & a doping element at 0.05 mol% to 5 mol%; see [0028] “content of the doping element is in a range of 0.05 mol% to 5 mol%” & see [0113] “the positive-electrode active material including the spherical secondary particle made of a layered rhombohedral system compound including metal, lithium, the doping element, and oxygen; the coating layer disposed on the surface of the secondary particle, wherein the coating layer is made of a compound including lithium, the doping element, and oxygen and has a crystal structure different from that of the secondary particle, wherein the metal may include nickel (Ni); and at least one of cobalt (Co), manganese (Mn), and aluminum (Al).”). Sun teaches in [0094] “the doping element may control the shape of the first primary particle 100 among the primary particles, and control the shape of contraction and expansion occurring in the lithium ion insertion or desorption process, thereby improving the lifespan characteristics of a secondary battery. When the content of the doping element is smaller than 0.05 mol %, it is difficult for the first primary particle to be radially oriented, such that the lithium ion movement efficiency is reduced. When the content exceeds 5 mol %, a spacing between the pair of first crystal planes 110 in the first primary particle 100 is too small, and thus cracks may occur in the cycle process.”
Furuichi and Sun are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely cathode active materials for batteries (see Sun title).
Therefore, 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 incorporate doping of W as suggested by Park2 (see P2 par 1 & P7) & co-doping as suggested by Sun (see [0110], [0015], [0028], [0113]) into the positive electrode active material of Furuichi because doing so improves the lifespan characteristics of the battery as suggested by Sun (see [0094]).
Regarding claims 19, 21, 22, and 23, modified Furuichi discloses the positive electrode active material of claim 18, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the ratio AlB/V is higher than 50.0, as required by claim 19, nor wherein the ratio AlB/V is lower than 250.0 and preferably lower than 200.0, as required by claim 21, nor wherein the ratio WB/W is higher than 10.0, preferably higher than 21.0 and more preferably higher than 22.0 as required by claim 22, nor wherein the ratio WB/W is lower than 150.0 and preferably lower than 100.0, as required by claim 23.
Sun teaches in [0094] “The doping element may control the shape of the first primary particle 100 among the primary particles, and control the shape of contraction and expansion occurring in the lithium ion insertion or desorption process, thereby improving the lifespan characteristics of a secondary battery. When the content of the doping element is smaller than 0.05 mol %, it is difficult for the first primary particle to be radially oriented, such that the lithium ion movement efficiency is reduced. When the content exceeds 5 mol %, a spacing between the pair of first crystal planes 110 in the first primary particle 100 is too small, and thus cracks may occur in the cycle process”.
A result effective variable is a variable which achieves a recognized result. The determination of the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable is routine experimentation and therefore obvious. MPEP § 2144.05.
Thus, the doping element content is a variable that achieves the recognized result of improved lifespan characteristics of the battery. That makes the doping % a result-effective variable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to routinely experiment with the doping % and come up with a ratio for the purpose of improving the lifespan characteristics of the battery.
Regarding claim 20, modified Furuichi discloses the positive electrode active material of claim 18, and further discloses wherein Mn in a content z between 0.0 mol% and 40.0 mol% relative to M’ (see abstract “M is at least one element selected from Mn” & “My” in chemical formula & “0≤y≤0.35” which lies within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 24, modified Furuichi discloses the positive electrode active material of claim 18. Regarding the limitation f>0, wherein the positive electrode active material has ratio FB/f>10.0, wherein FB is determined by XPS analysis, wherein FB is expressed as mol% compared to the sum of Ni, Co, Mn, Al, W, and F, as measured by XPS analysis, Furuichi does not explicitly disclose.
Park1 teaches on P3728 par 1 AlF3 which describes 0.23 mol% F & a skilled artisan would recognize that FB = 0.23/(0.91+0.35+0.06+0.35+0.15+0.23) = 0.11 which lies within the claimed range of f>0 & 100×(0.11/0.23) = 49 which lies within the claimed range of FB/f>10.
Regarding claim 25, modified Furuichi discloses the positive electrode active material of claim 18 and further discloses wherein said positive electrode active material comprises secondary particles comprising more than one primary particle (see abstract “positive electrode active material” & “primary particles and secondary particles formed by aggregation of the primary particles).
Regarding claim 26, modified Furuichi discloses the positive electrode active material of claim 18, but does not explicitly disclose wherein said positive electrode active material comprises single-crystalline particles, however, crystallinity of the material is an inherent property of the material.
Regarding claim 27, modified Furuichi discloses the positive electrode active material of claim 18, and further discloses a positive electrode for lithium-ion rechargeable batteries (see [0004] “lithium ion secondary battery” & see abstract “secondary batteries” & “positive electrode active material” & see [0030] “positive electrode of batteries”).
Regarding claim 28, modified Furuichi discloses the positive electrode active material of claim 18, and further discloses a polymer cell for lithium-ion rechargeable batteries (see [0144] “separator” & “thin film of polyethylene” which reads on polymer cell”).
Regarding claim 29, modified Furuichi discloses the positive electrode active material of claim 18, and further discloses a lithium-ion rechargeable battery (see [0004] “lithium ion secondary battery” & see abstract “secondary batteries”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH APPLEGATE whose telephone number is (571)270-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 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.
/S.A.A./ Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/JAMES M ERWIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 09/18/2026
Prosecution Insights