2Notice 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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/3/2025 has been entered.
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 7/3/2025. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-12, 14-19, 21-25 are pending. Claims 12, 14-19, 21-24 are withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to a non-elected invention, in accordance with 37 CFR 1.142(b). Applicant’s arguments have been considered. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-11, 25 are non-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, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) Kang (KR 2006-0029048) in view of Miyaki (US 2018/0226695).
Regarding claim 1, a positive active material for a rechargeable lithium battery, the positive active material comprising: a nickel-based lithium metal oxide having a layered crystal structure, and a coating layer comprising a lithium-metal oxide disposed on the nickel-based lithium metal oxide (page 8 of translation).
Regarding claim 6, the lithium-metal oxide comprises a compound represented by Chemical Formula 1, a compound represented by Chemical Formula 2, or a combination thereof (page 9 of translation).
Regarding claim 7, the lithium-metal oxide comprises Li2SnO3 (page 9 of translation).
Regarding claim 1, a coating layer comprising a lithium-metal oxide selectively disposed on (003) crystalline plane of the nickel-based lithium metal oxide, the instant Specification states the method of making the active material particles as follows:
Synthesis Example 3
[00163] LiNO3, Ni(NO3)2.6H2O, Co(NO3)2.6H2O, Al(NO3)3.9H2O and SnCl2 in a mole ratio of Li(Ni+Co+Al):Sn=1.08:0.95:0.05 (Ni Co:Al=0.80:0.15:0.05) were respectively dissolved in ethanol (10 mL) to prepare a precursor composition. Subsequently, citric acid as a chelating agent was used in a mole ratio of 1:1 with cations in the precursor composition.
[00164] The obtained precursor composition was stirred, until all the solvents were removed, obtaining gel.
[00165] The obtained gel was fired at 300 °C for 5 hours in the air to obtain powder.
[00166] The temperature was increased up to 750 °C, and the obtained powder was fired at 750 °C for 10 hours under an O2 atmosphere and cooled down to synthesize a single particle (one body) positive active material, Li[Ni0.80Co0.15Al0.05]O2 plane- selectively coated with Li2SnO3 on the (003) crystalline plane. Herein, a temperature-increasing rate was set at 5 °C/min, and a cooling rate was set at 1 °C/min. A measured single particle diameter (D50) of the positive active material was 1.68 um.
Applicant mixes lithium transition metal precursor particles and the metal oxide precursor particles in ethanol with citric acid as a chelating agent. The mixture is mixed and heat treated at 300 C for 5 hours, and at 750 C for 10 hours [00163-00165]. Kang’s active material precursors LiNO, Ni(NO3)2 6H2O, Co(NO3)2 6(H2O) and SnCl2 2H2O were dissolved in distilled water. A chelating agent was added and mixed. The sol mixture was dried. The dry gel was first heat treated at 300 C for 30 minutes, then heat treated again at 900 C for 10 hours. The temperature heating and cooling rate were 1 C/min (page 8 of translation).
Regarding Kang’s second heat treatment of 900 C, Kang discloses that the second heat treatment is performed at a temperature of 750 C to 1200C. When the secondary heat treatment temperature is lower than 750 C, it is difficult to sufficiently generate a crystalline material, and when it exceeds 1200 C, the crystal structure is destroyed (page 10 of Kang). It is noted Applicant’s second heat treatment at 750C and Kang’s heat treatment of 900 C both produce crystalized lithium transition metal oxides.
It appears that the methods of the Applicant and Kang are similar to produce a similar product. Hence, it appears that Kang’s coating would also be selectively disposed on (003) crystalline plane of the nickel-based lithium metal oxide.
MPEP 2112 V states that "once a reference teaching product appearing to be substantially identical is made the basis of a rejection, and the Examiner presents evidence or reasoning tending to show inherency, the burden shifts to the Applicant to show an unobvious difference."
Regarding claim 1, wherein the nickel-based lithium metal oxide exists as single particles, and the single particle has a particle diameter of about 1.35 um to about 6 um, and regarding claim 3, the single particle has a particle diameter of about 3 um to about 6 um, Kang discloses primary particles of 1 um (Example 3, page 10 of translation). Although Kang discloses that the primary particles are in the form of secondary particles, it appears that some of Kang’s particles would be in the form of primary particles because it appears that the methods of the Applicant and Kang are similar to produce a similar product. MPEP 2112 V states that "once a reference teaching product appearing to be substantially identical is made the basis of a rejection, and the Examiner presents evidence or reasoning tending to show inherency, the burden shifts to the Applicant to show an unobvious difference."
Further, the Specification states:
Synthesis Example 1
[00159] LiOH.H2O, Ni(OH)2, Co(OH)2, and SnO2 as solid-phase powders were respectively mixed to a mole ratio of 1.08:0.76:0.19:0.05 in a mortar and then, ball- milled at 500 rpm for 2 hours to synthesize uniformly-mixed solid-phased powder.
[00160] After increasing a temperature up to 750 C, the obtained mixture was fired at 750 C for 10 hours under an O2 atmosphere and then, cooled down to synthesize a single particle (one body) positive active material, Li[Ni0.8Co0.2]O2 plane-selectively coated with Li2SnO3 on the (003) plane. Herein, a temperature-increasing rate was set at 5 *C/min, and a cooling rate was set at 1 C/min. A measured single particle diameter (D50) of the positive active material was 3.02 um. (Emphasis added)
Kang discloses single particles have a size of 2-3 um (page 8 of translation). It is noted that Kang’s secondary particle reads on Applicant’s “single” particle, because a Kang’s secondary particle is one body.
Regarding claim 4, the lithium-metal oxide has a monoclinic crystal system having a C2/c space group crystal structure, this limitation is met by Kang’s coating Li2SnO3. A reference which is silent about a claimed invention's features is inherently anticipatory if the missing feature is necessarily present in that which is described in the reference. In re Robertson, 49 USPQ2d 1949 (1999).
Regarding claim 25, Kang discloses a rechargeable lithium battery comprising the positive active material of claim 1.
Regarding claim 1, a lattice mismatch ratio between a (003) crystalline plane of the nickel-based lithium metal oxide and a (00I) crystalline plane (wherein is 1, 2 or 3) of the lithium-metal oxide is less than or equal to about 15%, the instant Specification Table 1 shows the lithium metal oxides that have a lattice mismatch ratio of less than or equal to 15% based on LiNiO2. Kang discloses a coating material of Li2SnO3, but does not disclose the nickel-based lithium oxide of the Applicant’s. Miyaki teaches using a positive active material with a nickel cobalt content, such as Li(Ni0.8Co0.2)O2. It can generate a high voltage and have an excellent energy density [0057]. 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 Kawasaki in the battery of Kang, as taught by Mayaki, for the benefit of having good energy density.
The instant Specification also uses Li(Ni0.8Co0.2)O2as the positive active material (see Applicant’s example 1), and hence meets the limitation of claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, the nickel-based lithium metal oxide and the lithium-metal oxide selectively disposed on the (003) crystalline plane of the nickel-based lithium metal oxide each have a layered structure that is epitaxially grown in a same c-axis direction, Kang modified by Miyaki meets the limitation because the instant Specification states:
[00219] Referring to FIGS. 5A and 5B, a growth direction of the coating layer was observed. Through the STEM image, as a result of observing an atom alignment and an FFT pattern of Li[Ni0.8Co0.2]O2 and the Li2SnO3 coating layer, Li[Ni0.8Co0.2]O2 and the Li2SnO3 coating layer all exhibited a layered structure growth in the same c-axis20 direction. Accordingly, as the (003) crystalline plane of Li[Ni0.8Co0.2]O2, one layered structure, and the (002) crystalline plane of Li2SnO3 coating layer, another layered structure, were shared with each other, the two materials all epitaxially grew in the c- axis direction.
Regarding claim 11, the nickel-based lithium metal oxide comprises a compound represented by Chemical Formula 3, a compound represented by Chemical Formula 4, or a combination thereof, Miyaki teaches using a positive active material with a nickel cobalt content, such as Li(Ni0.8Co0.2)O2. It can generate a high voltage and have an excellent energy density [0057]. 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 Kawasaki in the battery of Kang, as taught by Mayaki, for the benefit of having good energy density.
Claims 8, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kang (KR 2006-0029048).
Regarding claim 8, a content of the lithium-metal oxide is about 0.1 mol% to about 5 mol% based on a total amount of the nickel- based lithium metal oxide and the lithium-metal oxide, regarding claim 9, the coating layer has a thickness of about 1 nm to about 100 nm, Kang discloses the lithium oxide coating has a thickness of 9 nm (page 11 of translation). Kang discloses improved cycle characteristics of the battery with positive active material with coating (page 12 of translation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the amount of the lithium metal oxide coating for the benefit of adjusting the cycle characteristics of the battery.
Kang clearly teaches that the coating lithium metal oxide is a result effective variable. It has been held by the courts that discovering an optimum value or workable ranges of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, and thus not novel. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP 2144.05.
Response to Arguments
Arguments filed 7/3/2025 are addressed below:
Applicants assert that figs. 4A to 4D show results of a cross-sectional analysis of the positive active material particle. Since, the particle has a layered crystal structure, it is unclear whether the cross-section refers to parallel or perpendicular to the crystal layers.
Applicant asserts layered positive active materials typically form plate-shaped particles, where the broader surfaces correspond to the (003) crystalline plane. Lithium ions migrate in a direction perpendicular to this (003) plane. FIGS. 4B to 4D depict a cross-sectional view of such a plate-shaped particle. The elongated regions in which Sn is observed correspond to the broad surface of the plate, i.e., the (003) plane. In contrast, no Sn is detected along the direction perpendicular to that plane (i.e., the narrow edge of the plate and the direction of lithium ion migration). These STEM-EDS images of the particle cross-section thus demonstrate that Sn (e.g., in the form of LizSnOs) is formed selectively on the (003) plane, rather than on other planes of the particle. (Page 8 and 9 of Response)
In response, Applicant is silent as to whether the cross-section refers to parallel or perpendicular to the crystal layers. If the top and bottom portions of the Sn image figure 4D shows the (003) plane, are only the top and bottom portions of the image of figure 4D the (003) plane, and the rest of the figure 4D is a different plane? If so, is the figure 4D a cross-section perpendicular to the (003) plane, and the figures 4B and 4C a cross-section parallel to the (003) plane?? If figure 4D is a cross-sectional view of the active material particle, figure 4D does not necessarily show a coating on (003) plane because the particle necessarily is absent of Sn inside the particle.
If the “elongated regions in which Sn is observed correspond to the broad surface of the plate, i.e., the (003) plane”, does the figure 4D show cross-section parallel or perpendicular to the crystal layer? Does figure 4D show a cross-section of the (003) plane? If so, how do the top and bottom regions of figure 4D show a coating on (003) plane?
If figure 4D is a cross-sectional view of the active material particle, figure 4D does not necessarily show a coating on (003) plane because the particle necessarily is absent of Sn inside the particle.
Since Applicants note that the elongated regions in which Sn is observed correspond to the broad surface of the plate, do the Applicants mean that figures 4B-4D each show a top view or a side view?
Hence, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive, and the rejections are maintained.
Applicant’s arguments to Kang’s figure 2, the Examiner notes that the rejection is not based on Kang’s figure 2, but appears that the methods of the Applicant and Kang are similar to produce a similar product. Hence, it appears that Kang’s coating would also be selectively disposed on (003) crystalline plane of the nickel-based lithium metal oxide.
MPEP 2112 V states that "once a reference teaching product appearing to be substantially identical is made the basis of a rejection, and the Examiner presents evidence or reasoning tending to show inherency, the burden shifts to the Applicant to show an unobvious difference."
Conclusion
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 571-270-1292. 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