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
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 11/7/2025. Claims 2 and 7 are canceled. Claim 23 is newly added. Claims 1, 4, 6, 8-11, 13-19, 21-23 are pending. Applicant’s arguments have been considered. Claims 1, 4, 6, 8-11, 19, 21-23 are finally rejected for reasons below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 8-11, 19, 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being unpatentable over Ito (WO 2006/027925) in view of Aoshima (US 2004/0076883) and Li (US 2006/0019167).
Regarding claim 1, 23, Ito discloses a positive active material for a rechargeable lithium battery, comprising:
a lithium-containing composite oxide; and
sulfur-containing inorganic lithium compounds,
wherein the sulfur-containing inorganic lithium compounds form a coating layer on a surface of the lithium-containing composite oxide (page 8, lines 20-25).
the sulfur-containing inorganic lithium compounds comprise Li2SO4 (page 8, line 24).
Regarding claim 1, 23, the coating layer has a thickness of about 15 nm to about 100 nm (see Table 1).
Regarding claim 1, the coating layer is formed as a uniform film on the surface of the lithium-containing composite oxide (page 29, lines 16-25). Further, Ito discloses using dry methods to attach sulfur-containing inorganic lithium compounds to the lithium-containing composite oxide, such as chemical vapor deposition (CVD), physical vapor deposition (PVD), pulse laser deposition, and the sputtering method (page 18). Hence, absent further specificity of what the Applicants mean by “uniform”, it is noted that the vapor deposition methods of Ito would read on Applicant’s “uniform” coating.
For example, it is noted that CVD involves using a gaseous precursor to form a thin coating on a substrate. It is further noted that the instant invention also uses a gaseous deposition method to form a coating (paragraph [0097]).
Regarding claim 1, an X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) binding energy peak of the sulfur-containing inorganic lithium compounds is exhibited at about 168 eV to about 172 eV, the instant Specification states:
[0051] In general, a binding energy peak of photoelectrons emitted from a 2P 3/2 orbital level of a sulfur (S) atom (e.g., an elemental sulfur atom) appears in a range of about 168.5 eV to about 169.6 eV when measured by XPS. By comparison, a binding energy peak of a sulfur (S) atom included in the coating layer of the present disclosure appears in a range of about 168 eV to about 172 eV, which is a little higher than the above binding energy peak.
[0052] The reason is that the sulfur-containing inorganic lithium compound includes a highly electronegative oxygen (O) atom around (e.g., near or bonded to) the sulfur (S) atom. For example, the elements in lithium sulfate (Li2SO4) have electronegativities of Li: 0.98, S: 2.58, and O: 3.44, respectively, but the oxygen (O) atom is directly bonded with the sulfur (S) atom within the molecular structure of the lithium sulfate (LizSO4) represented by Structural Formula 1. When a neighboring (e.g., a bonded) atom has higher electronegativity, a screening effect of the valence electrons on the analyzed atom tends to be decreased, the bonding energy of the core electrons tends to be increased, and accordingly, the high electronegativity of the oxygen (O) atom bonded with the sulfur (S) atom in the lithium sulfate (Li2SO4) may have a larger influence on the XPS peak of the analyzed sulfur (S) atom than lithium (Li) ions. Accordingly, in the positive active material according to an embodiment of the present disclosure, a binding energy peak of sulfur (S) as measured by XPS is observed at a higher range compared to a typically exhibited (e.g., elemental) sulfur (S) atom. (emphasis added)
Hence, Ito’s Li2SO4 reads on Applicant’s claim 1.
Regarding claim 1, an X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) binding energy peak of the sulfur-containing inorganic lithium compounds is exhibited at about 166 eV to about 167 eV, this limitation is met by the compound Li2S2O4. See instant Specification [00116].
Regarding claim 1, a residual lithium content of the positive active material is less than or equal to 4134 ppm based on total weight of the positive active material, the instant Specification discloses Comparative Example 1 comprising a composition of Li1.1(Ni0.91Co0.06Mn0.03)O2 without a sulfur coating treatment [00969, 0105]. Applicant’s Li excess amount for Comparative Example 1 is 10% of the transition metal amount. Ito discloses a composition of Li1.05(Ni0.35Co0.32Mn0.33)O2 before the sulfur-containing inorganic lithium coating (page 29, line 13). Ito’s Li excess amount is 5% of the transition metal amount. It is noted that Ito’s Li excess amount before the lithium sulfate coating is the same as after coating since the lithium on the coating is derived from the lithium sulfate compound, and not the lithium transition metal oxide. Since the residual Li content for Applicant’s Comparative Example 1 is 4910 ppm (see Table1), it is noted that the residual Li content for Ito would be half the amount, which would be 2455 ppm, and hence meets the limitation of claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, the lithium of the sulfur- containing inorganic lithium compound is derived from the lithium-containing composite oxide, it has been considered but was not given patentable weight because the courts have held that the method of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself. “[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 the product of prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 6, the sulfur-containing inorganic lithium compound is included in an amount of about 1 wt% to about 20 wt% based on a total weight of the positive active material, Ito teaches the Li compound is preferred to have the ability to conduct lithium ions. The reason for this preference of conductivity is that when a Li compound having no ability to conduct lithium ions is attached, the portion of this attachment entails an increase of the internal resistance of the positive electrode material because of the absence of conduction of lithium ions and inevitably suffers the battery performance to degrade. The Li compounds enumerated above are invariably possessed of the ability to conduct lithium ions (last paragraph of page 9 to the first paragraph of page 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the thickness, or the amount, of the coating for the benefit of protecting the active material from increased resistance.
Regarding claim 21, the sulfur from the sulfur-containing inorganic lithium compounds is equal to or less than about 14.35 at% in amount based on the total amount of the metals except the lithium in the positive active material, the instant Specification states on Table 4 that the sulfur content in the coating of Example 1 is 14.35 at% when the thickness is 100 nm (see Table 1). Hence, Ito’s Li2SO4 coating with a thickness of 100 nm reads on Applicant’s claim. See Example 1 in Table 1 of Ito.
Regarding claims 1, 23, sulfur from the sulfur-containing inorganic lithium compounds is greater than 2 at% in amount based on a total amount of metals except lithium in the positive active material, and regarding claim 22, the sulfur from the sulfur-containing inorganic lithium compounds is equal to or greater than about 2.88 at% in amount based on a total amount of metals except lithium in the positive active material, the instant Specification states on Table 4 that the sulfur content in the coating of Example 1 is 14.35 at% when the thickness is 100 nm (see Table 1). Hence, Ito’s Li2SO4 coating with a thickness of 100 nm reads on Applicant’s claim. See Example 1 in Table 1 of Ito.
Regarding claim 1, 23, the positive active material has a specific surface area (BET) of about 0.48 m2/g to about 1.50 m2/g, Aoshima teaches a positive active material comprising a lithium-nickel compound oxide. Aoshima teaches:
Regarding claim 8, a nickel content of the lithium-containing composite oxide is greater than or equal to about 55 at% based on a total amount of metals except lithium [0008].
Regarding claim 9, a nickel content of the lithium-containing composite oxide is greater than or equal to about 80 at% based on a total amount of metals except lithium [0008].
Regarding claim 10, the lithium-containing composite oxide comprises a lithium nickel composite oxide represented by Chemical Formula 1:
<Chemical Formula 1>
Lia(NixMy'Mz")O2,
wherein, in Chemical Formula 1, M' is at least one element selected from Co, Mn, Ni, Al, Mg, and Ti, M’ is at least one element selected from Ca, Mg, Al, Ti, Sr, Fe, Co, Mn, Ni, Cu, Zn, Y, Zr, Nb, and B, 0.8<a<1.2, 0.6<x<1, 0<y<0.4,0<z<0.4, and 0.6 < x+y+z < 1.2 [0008].
Regarding claim 11, the lithium-containing composite oxide comprises a lithium nickel composite oxide represented by Chemical Formula 2:
<Chemical Formula 2>
Lig(NixCoyMnz)Oo,
wherein, in Chemical Formula 2, 0.8<a<1.2, 0.6<x<1, 0<y<0.4,0<z<0.4, and 0.6 < x+y+z < 1.2 [0008].
Aoshima teaches if the specific surface area of the lithium-nickel compound oxide is too large, the capacity of the cell decreases. Further, due to e.g. a viscosity increase when formed into a coating material, there will be a difficulty in the production process. On the other hand, if it is too small, the cell characteristics such as rate characteristics or cycle characteristics tend to be deteriorated. Accordingly, the specific surface area is at least 0.1 m.sup.2/g, preferably at least 0.5 m.sup.2/g, more preferably at least 1 m.sup.2/g. On the other hand, it is at most 10 m.sup.2/g, preferably at most 5 m.sup.2/g, more preferably at most 3 m.sup.2/g. By adjusting the specific surface area within the above range, it will be possible to positively induce deactivation of the surface of the lithium-nickel compound oxide at the time of overcharging and thus to maintain the cell characteristics and the operation efficiency during the production to be good. The specific surface area is measured in accordance with the BET method [0067]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the positive active material of Aoshima in the positive electrode of Ito, as taught by Aoshima, for the benefit of optimizing the capacity and cycle characteristics.
Regarding claim 1, 23, Ito discloses the sulfur-containing inorganic lithium compounds comprise Li2SO4 [0014], but does not disclose Li2S2O4. Ito teaches the Li compound is preferred to have the ability to conduct lithium ions. The reason for this preference of conductivity is that when a Li compound having no ability to conduct lithium ions is attached, the portion of this attachment entails an increase of the internal resistance of the positive electrode material because of the absence of conduction of lithium ions and inevitably suffers the battery performance to degrade. The Li compounds enumerated above are invariably possessed of the ability to conduct lithium ions (last paragraph of page 9 to the first paragraph of page 10). Li teaches a lithium-ion battery having a protection layer made of sulfates, such as Li2S2O4 [0034] on an anode. The protective layer such as a surface film has a high Li-ion conductivity [0013]. Li discloses that the protection layer may also be used in a positive electrode for a lithium-ion battery in various lithium transition metal oxides [0053]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use Li2S2O4 as a S-containing compound of Ito modified by Aoshima.
The instant Specification states that Li2S2O4 is present in a small amount. See Table 3. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use any S-containing compound, such Li2S2O4 of Li, absent criticality.
Regarding claim 19, Ito modified by Aoshima and Li teaches a rechargeable lithium battery, comprising: a positive electrode comprising the positive active material of claim 1;
a negative electrode;
a separator between the positive electrode and the negative electrode; and
an electrolyte solution between the positive electrode and the negative electrode.
Regarding claim 23, wherein the positive active material is prepared by: injecting a metal hydroxide precursor and a lithium source to form a mixture; firing the mixture at a reaction temperature of about 700 °C to about 800 °C to form the lithium-containing composite oxide, cooling the lithium-containing composite oxide to a temperature of about 400 °C to about 600 °C, and injecting a sulfur-containing gas to react with a residue lithium on the surface of the lithium-containing composite oxide to form the coating layer on the surface of the lithium-containing composite oxide, the limitation has been considered but was not given patentable weight because the courts have held that the method of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself. “[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 the product of prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113.
Ito discloses using dry methods to attach sulfur-containing inorganic lithium compounds to the lithium-containing composite oxide, such as chemical vapor deposition (CVD), physical vapor deposition (PVD), pulse laser deposition, and the sputtering method (page 18). For example, it is noted that CVD involves using a gaseous precursor to form a thin coating on a substrate. It is further noted that the instant invention also uses a gaseous deposition method to form a coating (paragraph [0097]).
Therefore, the limitation is met by Ito.
Response to Arguments
Arguments dated 11/7/2025 are addressed below:
Regarding claim 1, a residual lithium content of the positive active material is less than or equal to 4134 ppm based on total weight of the positive active material, the instant Specification discloses Comparative Example 1 comprising a composition of Li1.1(Ni0.91Co0.06Mn0.03)O2 without a sulfur coating treatment [0096, 0105]. Applicant’s Li excess amount for Comparative Example 1 is 10% of the transition metal amount. Ito discloses a composition of Li1.05(Ni0.35Co0.32Mn0.33)O2 before the sulfur-containing inorganic lithium coating (page 29, line 13). Ito’s Li excess amount is 5% of the transition metal amount. It is noted that Ito’s Li excess amount before the lithium sulfate coating is the same as after coating since the lithium on the coating is derived from the lithium sulfate compound, and not the lithium transition metal oxide. Since the residual Li content for Applicant’s Comparative Example 1 is 4910 ppm (see Applicant’s Table1), it is noted that the residual Li content for Ito would be half the amount, which would be 2455 ppm, and hence meets the limitation of claim 1.
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 CYNTHIA KYUNG SOO WALLS whose telephone number is (571)272-8699. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F until 5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jonathan Leong can be reached at 571-270-5256. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CYNTHIA K WALLS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751