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 .
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges amended Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, and 10 and new Claim 12 in the response filed on 7/20/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant respectfully disagrees with the Specification objection. Applicant submits that specification amendments are not needed because present claim 5 has clear support in original claim 5.
However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner acknowledges that present claim 5 is supported due to being original claim 5. However, the objection to the Specification is maintained to failing to provide proper antecedent basis for claim 5. Please amend the specification to include the subject matter of original claim 5 to overcome the objection.
Applicant argues that cited paragraphs of Akimoto relate only to the benefits of Akimoto but not the parameters for its general formula, and therefore fail to support the rejections. There are at least six elements not addressed in the rejections, and the Office should compare the relevant disclosures of Akimoto to each element of the present claims. Applicant further argues that Akimoto’s examples do not disclose the claimed particulate material.
However, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive. It is noted that “applicant must look to the whole reference for what it teaches. Applicant cannot merely rely on the examples and argue that the reference did not teach others.” In re Courtright, 377 F.2d 647, 153 USPQ 735,739 (CCPA 1967). Although Akimoto does not disclose an explicit example, Akimoto broadly teaches a particulate material of the composition is (Li1+x-2yMy)(CozNimTinMn1-m-n)1-xO2, wherein M represents Ca and/or Mg, 0<x≤0.33, 0<y<0.13, 0≤z<0.2, 0<m<0.5, and 0≤n≤0.25 [0045]. That is, Akimoto teaches the claimed elements of Li, Mg, Ni, M1, M2 and O, and their respective concentration for each element overlaps Applicant’s claimed ranges. Thus, the Examiner maintains that it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Akimoto et al. to render obvious the claimed limitations, since Akimoto et al. discloses that the claimed materials and ranges are within the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art when selecting known and equivalent active materials for use in lithium secondary batteries. Further, it would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
It is also noted that there appears to be no evidence and/or examples to establish any criticality in Applicant’s particulate material. In paragraph Page 17: Lines 24-25 in Applicant’s as-filed specification, it discloses an inventive cathode material CAM.2 to be (Li1.030Mg0.020)Ni0.970Al0.005Mn0.010Zr0.005W0.005O2. It does not satisfy the ratio a:b to be in a range of from 100:1 to 400:1 and a + b = 1. That is, a ratio of Li:Mg is 51.5 (a=0.98 and b=0.02)- well outside the range of 100:1 to 400:1. Further clarification is needed.
Applicant argues that cited particle diameters of Erk are for the starting particles before coating (see Page 3: Lines 1-6). However, because the final particles are partially coated, they will necessarily have diameters larger than these starting particles. Consequently, the Office has failed to establish that Erk teaches a final particle diameter as presently claimed.
However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Erk does not preclude its final particles from having an average secondary particle diameter of 3 to 20 μm (with or without a coating). As disclosed on Page 11: Lines 27-33, the inventive electrode active materials (i.e. final product) can include particles coated with a metal oxide. Then on Page 12: Lines 5-9, Erk further discloses that its inventive electrode active materials (i.e. final product) can also have an average secondary particle diameter of 3 to 20 μm, preferably from 5 to 16 μm. Therefore, the Examiner deems that Erk teaches a particulate material that has an average secondary particle diameter in a range of from 3 to 20 μm, with or without a coating. Please note that Claim 1 does not recite/require a metal oxide coating.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Claim 5 is not disclosed in Applicant’s Specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 20180138507 (“Akimoto et al.”) in view of WO 2020109360 (“Erk et al.”).
With regards to Claims 1-3 and 12, Akimoto et al. teaches a particulate material of the composition (Li1+x-2yMy)(CozNimTinMn1-m-n)1-xO2, wherein M represents Ca and/or Mg, 0<x≤0.33, 0<y<0.13, 0≤z<0.2, 0<m<0.5, and 0≤n≤0.25 [0045].
While Akimoto et al. does not explicitly teach examples of its composition meeting the claimed concentration and ratios, the teachings are deemed sufficient such that the overlap is a rendering of obviousness in view of producing a stable material ([0037], [0039], [0041], [0044], and [0068]); especially that among the selection are known functionally equivalent compositions and structures.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Akimoto et al. to render obvious the claimed limitations, since Akimoto et al. discloses that the claimed materials and ranges are within the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art when selecting known and equivalent active materials for use in lithium secondary batteries. Further, it would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Akimoto et al. does not explicitly disclose its particulate material having an average particle diameter (D50) in the range of from 2 to 20 μm.
However, Erk et al. teaches its particulate material having an average secondary particle diameter (D50) in the range of from 3 to 20 μm, preferably 5 to 16 μm (Page 12 Lines 5-7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Akimoto et al.’s particulate material have an appropriate average particle diameter (D50) within the claimed range to achieve desirable energy density/capacity.
With regards to Claim 4, Akimoto et al. teaches the number of metals other than Ni, Mg, and Li is at least three and at most five (i.e. elements Co, Ti, and Mn) [0045].
With regards to Claim 5, Akimoto et al. teaches its particulate material is capable of high capacity and exhibits little change in the discharge curve upon cycling, or can be expected to prove that type of performance [0036]. Akimoto et al. further teaches that initial charging reaction (lithium extraction reaction), an oxygen extraction reaction did not occur, arrangement of the oxygen atoms are maintained, and a potential plateau was not observed at about 4.5 V during initial charging, with the potential curve displaying a monotonous increase, and also means that changes in the crystal structure caused by charging and discharging were less likely to occur, resulting in an unexpectedly small reduction in capacity, with a high capacity exceeding 250 mAh/g obtained in a charge discharge test with a voltage range from 4.6 V to 2.5 V, and almost no charges in the charge/discharge curves, even upon cycling ([0045-[0047]).
Akimoto et al. does not explicitly teach the claimed integral peak width.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize Akimoto et al.’s particulate material to have an integral peak width 2nd chargeIPW4.1-4.25 V in the differential capacity plot (dQ)/(dV) of at least 25 mV between 4.1 and 4.25 V in the second charge cycle at 0.2 C-rate in order to obtain a material with desirable mechanical and structural stability to produce an efficient battery [0046].
With regards to Claim 6, Akimoto et al. does not specifically teach its material is coated with a metal oxide.
However, Erk et al. teaches its particulate material is coated with a metal oxide (Page 11: Lines 31-33). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to coat Akimoto et al.’s particulate material with a metal oxide to provide protection and stability to the active material.
With regards to process limitations recited in Claims 7 and 8, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.”, (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964,966). Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious different between the claimed product and the prior art product (In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983), MPEP 2113). In the instant case, Akimoto et al. teaches the claimed particulate material, and therefore meets the instant limitations.
With regards to Claim 9, Akimoto et al. teaches a cathode comprising (A) at least one particulate material, (B) carbon in electrically conductive form, and (C) a binder material [0146].
With regards to Claim 10, Akimoto et al. teaches about 50 to 95% by weight cathode active material, about 1 to 50% by weight of carbon, and 0 to 30% by weight of binder material [0147].
With regards to Claim 11, please see paragraph [0159].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA CHAU whose telephone number is (571)270-5496. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11 AM-730 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/LC/
Lisa Chau
Art Unit 1785
/Holly Rickman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
