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 6/18/2026. Claim 8 is canceled. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 12-16 are pending. Applicant’s arguments have been considered. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 12-16 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, 3, 4, 6, 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hwang (US 2016/0181599) in view of Sun (US 2009/0068561) and Sun (US 2014/0158932).
Regarding claim 1, Hwang discloses a lithium secondary battery, comprising:
a cathode formed from a cathode active material including a lithium metal oxide particle containing nickel (Ni) and manganese (Mn),
an anode formed from an anode active material containing a graphite-based material having a crystal interplanar distance (d002) of 3.356 to 3.365A,
a separator interposed between the cathode and the anode,
a non-aqueous electrolyte immersing the cathode and the anode,
wherein the lithium metal oxide particle includes, in a direction from a center toward a surface of the particle, a core region, a concentration gradient region, and a peripheral portion,
wherein the lithium metal oxide particle includes a core region, a concentration gradient region, and a peripheral region in a direction from a center toward a surface of the particle.
wherein the core region embraces at least 50% of the radius of the lithium metal oxide particle from the center and has constant concentrations of metal elements (Table 1),
wherein an average particle diameter of the lithium metal oxide particle is 3 um to 15 um [0076], wherein an atomic percentage (atomic %) of Ni in an overall average chemical composition of the lithium metal oxide particle is from 0.6 to 0.95 [0075].
Regarding claim 3, a Ni concentration continuously decreases and a Mn concentration continuously increases from the center toward the surface in the concentration gradient region of the lithium metal oxide particle (Table 1).
Regarding claim 4, the lithium metal oxide particle further comprises cobalt (Co), wherein a concentration of Co is constant from the center to the surface [0075].
Regarding claim 6, a difference in amounts between a concentration gradient slope of Ni and a concentration gradient slope of Mn may be 5% or less in the concentration gradient region, Hwang discloses the slope of Ni and the slope of Mn are the same: between site 4 to site 6 in Table 1.
Regarding claim 7, the lithium metal oxide particle includes a core region having constant concentrations of metal elements and embracing at least 50% of a radius of the lithium metal oxide particle from the center, Table 2 discloses that the core part extends from site 1 to site 11.
Regarding claim 12, an overall average chemical composition the lithium metal oxide particle is represented by Chemical Formula as claimed [0075].
Regarding claim 13, the anode active material includes a natural graphite and an artificial graphite [0088].
Regarding claim 14, a crystal interplanar distance (d002) of the natural graphite may be 3.356 to 3.360A and a crystal interplanar distance (d002) of the artificial graphite may be 3.361 to 3.365A [0088].
Regarding claim 15, the anode active material includes a natural graphite and an artificial graphite in a weight ratio of more than 0:100 and 90:10 or less. See Table 3.
Regarding claim 16, a mixed weight ratio of the natural graphite and the artificial graphite is 10:90 to 50:50. See Table 3.
Regarding claim 1, Hwang discloses wherein the concentration gradient region is formed at a region between the core region and the peripheral portion and extends from an outermost point of the core region to an innermost point of the peripheral portion in the direction from the center toward the surface of the particle, but does not disclose has a total length in a direction from the center toward the surface of the particle of from 40nm to 500nm, each of Ni and Mn has a constant concentration gradient slope in an entire region of the concentration gradient region. Sun ‘561 teaches the positive active material having an internal bulk part and an external bulk part surrounding the internal bulk part, wherein the metal composition is present in a continuous concentration gradient from the interface between the internal bulk part and the external bulk part to the surface of the active material [0045]. [0048] The volume of the internal bulk part ranges from 50 and 90 volume %. When the internal bulk part is less than 35 volume %, the discharge capacity is decreased. When it is more than 95 volume %, the thermal safety is deteriorated [0048]. It is noted that the balance is made of external bulk region, and hence, the volume of the external bulk region is between 10 volume% to 50 volume%.
Because Sun ‘561 teaches when the internal bulk part is less than 35 volume %, the discharge capacity is decreased [0048], an ordinary artisan would draw that one would not want to make the concentration gradient too thick because a thick concentration gradient would decrease discharge capacity. An ordinary artisan would be motivated to minimize the concentration gradient thickness for the benefit of increasing the discharge capacity.
MPEP states:
2144.01 Implicit Disclosure [R-10.2019]
"[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (emphasis added)
2144.02 Reliance on Scientific Theory [R-08.2012]
The rationale to support a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 may rely on logic and sound scientific principle. In re Soli, 317 F.2d 941, 137 USPQ 797 (CCPA 1963). (emphasis added)
For example, Hwang discloses in Ex 1 that the particle size is 4.8 um [0076]. For a 4.8 um particle diameter, should an ordinary artisan choose the concentration gradient to be 10 vol% as taught by Sun ‘561, the math for the concentration gradient comes out to 100 nm, well within the range of Applicant’s 40nm to 500 nm:
Volume for a particle diameter 4.8 um
= 4/3(pi)r3
=4/3 (pi)(2.4)^3
=57.88 um^3
The volume of the particle at 90% diameter:
=57.88 um^3 = 52.09 um^3
The radius of the particle at 90% diameter:
52.09 um^3 = 4/3(pi)r^3
12.44 um^3 = r^3
2.3 um = r = core
Hence, the concentration gradient thickness (the remaining 10 vol% of the particle) is:
= 2.4 um – 2.3 um
=0.1 um
= 100 nm
Regarding claim 1, Hwang discloses a peripheral portion, wherein the peripheral portion extends from the surface of the particle in a direction toward the center of the particle, and has constant concentrations of Ni and Mn (Table 1), but does not disclose has a total length in a direction from the surface toward the center of the particle of from 30nm to 60nm. Sun ‘932 teaches a positive electrode active material comprising a surface maintaining layer, where the concentrations of metal ions are constant. Namely, stability and electrochemical characteristic of a structure itself may be improved by further forming a surface maintaining layer, where the concentrations of all transition metal making up the positive electrode active material are constant, on the outside of the particle [0033]. The surface maintaining layer has a thickness of 0.2 um [0067]. The surface maintaining layer improved the lifetime characteristic and its thermal (DSC) characteristic. See Example 1-2 in Table 1.
Referring to Table 1, the examples have the shell thicknesses of Example 1-2 (0.2 um) and Example 1-3 (0.5 um) and Example 1-4 (1 um), refer to [0067]. Table 1 shows that the thinnest shell shows the best capacity, but lower capacity than the particle without any shell Example 1-1. An ordinary skilled artisan would be motivated to decrease the shell thickness and lower than 0.2 um (Example 1-2) for the benefit of increasing capacity, while sacrificing the cycle characteristic and thermal stability. In other words, an ordinary skilled artisan would be motivated to add a shell to example 1-1, but thinner than the shell in Example 1-2 for the benefit of increasing the thermal stability, while sacrificing its capacity.
Table 1 examples 1-2 through 1-4 teaches that adding a surface maintaining layer increases its lifetime characteristics, but decreases the capacity. Hence, an ordinary artisan would be motivated to add a surface maintaining layer to Example 1-1 that is thinner than the Example 1-2 to increase lifetime characteristics, while having better capacity than Example 1-2.
MPEP states:
2144.01 Implicit Disclosure [R-10.2019]
"[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (emphasis added)
2144.02 Reliance on Scientific Theory [R-08.2012]
The rationale to support a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 may rely on logic and sound scientific principle. In re Soli, 317 F.2d 941, 137 USPQ 797 (CCPA 1963). (emphasis added)
Regarding claim 1, a ratio of a concentration (atomic%) of Ni with respect to a concentration (atomic%) of Mn at the surface and in the peripheral portion of the lithium metal oxide particle is 0.29 to 1.27, Sun ‘932 teaches the surface maintaining section has a general formula is Li[Ni1-(x+y+z)CoxMnyMz]O2 (0.07<x<0.3, 0.2<y<0.5, 0.00<z<0.1, 0.3<x+y+z<0.7) [0059], in which both the Applicants’ Specification and Sun ‘932 disclose Ni is less than or greater than Mn on the outer periphery of the particle.
Nonetheless, Sun ‘932, the positive electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery is characterized by high Ni content in the first interior, and low Ni content and high Mn content in the second interior [0059].
Tables 13 shows Ni/Mn ratio for Example 16-3 (2.5) and Example 16-4 (2). Table 14 shows life time characteristic decreases as you decrease the ratio, but capacity is increased with lower nickel content on the shell.
As a matter of fact, Sun teaches in [0130], Ni/Mn ratio of Example 15-1 is 1, Example 15-2 is 0.33 (10:30), which meets claim 1.
Therefore, an ordinary artisan would be motivated to lower the nickel content on the surface maintaining layer of Hwang, as suggested by Sun ‘932, for the benefit of increasing its capacity compared to a particle that has a higher Mn content on its surface.
MPEP states:
2144.01 Implicit Disclosure [R-10.2019]
"[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (emphasis added)
2144.02 Reliance on Scientific Theory [R-08.2012]
The rationale to support a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 may rely on logic and sound scientific principle. In re Soli, 317 F.2d 941, 137 USPQ 797 (CCPA 1963). (emphasis added)
Regarding claim 1, Hwang modified by Sun ‘561 and Sun ‘932 teaches wherein the concentration gradient region is formed at a region between the core region and the peripheral portion.
Regarding claim 10, Hwang modified by Sun ‘561 and Sun ‘932 teaches the concentration gradient region is formed at a region between the core region and the peripheral portion.
Response to Arguments
Regarding arguments dated 6/18/2026:
Regarding claim 1, Hwang discloses wherein the concentration gradient region is formed at a region between the core region and the peripheral portion and extends from an outermost point of the core region to an innermost point of the peripheral portion in the direction from the center toward the surface of the particle, but does not disclose has a total length in a direction from the center toward the surface of the particle of from 40nm to 500nm, each of Ni and Mn has a constant concentration gradient slope in an entire region of the concentration gradient region. Sun ‘561 teaches the positive active material having an internal bulk part and an external bulk part surrounding the internal bulk part, wherein the metal composition is present in a continuous concentration gradient from the interface between the internal bulk part and the external bulk part to the surface of the active material [0045]. [0048] The volume of the internal bulk part ranges from 50 and 90 volume %. When the internal bulk part is less than 35 volume %, the discharge capacity is decreased. When it is more than 95 volume %, the thermal safety is deteriorated [0048]. It is noted that the balance is made of external bulk region, and hence, the volume of the external bulk region is between 10 volume% to 50 volume%.
Because Sun ‘561 teaches when the internal bulk part is less than 35 volume %, the discharge capacity is decreased [0048], an ordinary artisan would draw that one would not want to make the concentration gradient too thick because a thick concentration gradient would decrease discharge capacity. An ordinary artisan would be motivated to minimize the concentration gradient thickness for the benefit of increasing the discharge capacity.
MPEP states:
2144.01 Implicit Disclosure [R-10.2019]
"[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (emphasis added)
2144.02 Reliance on Scientific Theory [R-08.2012]
The rationale to support a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 may rely on logic and sound scientific principle. In re Soli, 317 F.2d 941, 137 USPQ 797 (CCPA 1963). (emphasis added)
For example, Hwang discloses in Ex 1 that the particle size is 4.8 um [0076]. For a 4.8 um particle diameter, should an ordinary artisan choose the concentration gradient to be 10 vol% as taught by Sun ‘561, the math for the concentration gradient comes out to 100 nm, well within the range of Applicant’s 40nm to 500 nm:
Volume for a particle diameter 4.8 um
= 4/3(pi)r3
=4/3 (pi)(2.4)^3
=57.88 um^3
The volume of the particle at 90% diameter:
=57.88 um^3 = 52.09 um^3
The radius of the particle at 90% diameter:
52.09 um^3 = 4/3(pi)r^3
12.44 um^3 = r^3
2.3 um = r = core
Hence, the concentration gradient thickness (the remaining 10 vol% of the particle) is:
= 2.4 um – 2.3 um
=0.1 um
= 100 nm
Regarding claim 1, Hwang discloses a peripheral portion, wherein the peripheral portion extends from the surface of the particle in a direction toward the center of the particle, and has constant concentrations of Ni and Mn (Table 1), but does not disclose has a total length in a direction from the surface toward the center of the particle of from 30nm to 60nm. Sun ‘932 teaches a positive electrode active material comprising a surface maintaining layer, where the concentrations of metal ions are constant. Namely, stability and electrochemical characteristic of a structure itself may be improved by further forming a surface maintaining layer, where the concentrations of all transition metal making up the positive electrode active material are constant, on the outside of the particle [0033]. The surface maintaining layer has a thickness of 0.2 um [0067]. The surface maintaining layer improved the lifetime characteristic and its thermal (DSC) characteristic. See Example 1-2 in Table 1.
Referring to Table 1, the examples have the shell thicknesses of Example 1-2 (0.2 um) and Example 1-3 (0.5 um) and Example 1-4 (1 um), refer to [0067]. Table 1 shows that the thinnest shell shows the best capacity, but lower capacity than the particle without any shell Example 1-1. An ordinary skilled artisan would be motivated to decrease the shell thickness and lower than 0.2 um (Example 1-2) for the benefit of increasing capacity, while sacrificing the cycle characteristic and thermal stability. In other words, an ordinary skilled artisan would be motivated to add a shell to example 1-1, but thinner than the shell in Example 1-2 for the benefit of increasing the thermal stability, while sacrificing its capacity.
Table 1 examples 1-2 through 1-4 teaches that adding a surface maintaining layer increases its lifetime characteristics, but decreases the capacity. Hence, an ordinary artisan would be motivated to add a surface maintaining layer to Example 1-1 that is thinner than the Example 1-2 to increase lifetime characteristics, while having better capacity than Example 1-2.
MPEP states:
2144.01 Implicit Disclosure [R-10.2019]
"[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (emphasis added)
2144.02 Reliance on Scientific Theory [R-08.2012]
The rationale to support a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 may rely on logic and sound scientific principle. In re Soli, 317 F.2d 941, 137 USPQ 797 (CCPA 1963). (emphasis added)
Regarding claim 1, a ratio of a concentration (atomic%) of Ni with respect to a concentration (atomic%) of Mn at the surface and in the peripheral portion of the lithium metal oxide particle is 0.29 to 1.27, Sun ‘932 teaches the surface maintaining section has a general formula is Li[Ni1-(x+y+z)CoxMnyMz]O2 (0.07<x<0.3, 0.2<y<0.5, 0.00<z<0.1, 0.3<x+y+z<0.7) [0059], in which both the Applicants’ Specification and Sun ‘932 disclose Ni is less than or greater than Mn on the outer periphery of the particle.
Nonetheless, Sun ‘932, the positive electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery is characterized by high Ni content in the first interior, and low Ni content and high Mn content in the second interior [0059].
Tables 13 shows Ni/Mn ratio for Example 16-3 (2.5) and Example 16-4 (2). Table 14 shows life time characteristic decreases as you decrease the ratio, but capacity is increased with lower nickel content on the shell.
As a matter of fact, Sun teaches in [0130], Ni/Mn ratio of Example 15-1 is 1, Example 15-2 is 0.33 (10:30), which meets claim 1.
Therefore, an ordinary artisan would be motivated to lower the nickel content on the surface maintaining layer of Hwang, as suggested by Sun ‘932, for the benefit of increasing its capacity compared to a particle that has a higher Mn content on its surface.
MPEP states:
2144.01 Implicit Disclosure [R-10.2019]
"[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (emphasis added)
2144.02 Reliance on Scientific Theory [R-08.2012]
The rationale to support a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 may rely on logic and sound scientific principle. In re Soli, 317 F.2d 941, 137 USPQ 797 (CCPA 1963). (emphasis added)
In an effort to help Applicants identify their inventive subject matter, the Examiner refers the Applicants to Applicant’s Table 9, which is the Applicant’s comprehensive table. Table 9 shows the capacity retention rate and capacity rate at high temperature for batteries with various cathode active materials, in particular, varying the Ni/Mn ratio at its surface, the NG/AG mixture ratio in the anode. They all similarly show that increasing the AG amount increases the capacity retention rate, even at high temperature. Table 9 also shows that Ni/Mn ratio ranging 0.29-5.24 produce superior results than comparative examples that do not have a concentration gradient. Applicant’s Table 9 shows that the lower the Ni/Mn ratio, the higher the capacity retention rate with the maximum of 89.3% when Ni/Mn ratio 0.29. However, this is actually lower than the capacity retention rate of Hwang at 96% for Example 14 in Table 3, in which the Ni/Mn ratio is 6.4 [0085]. Hence, it is unclear as to what is the Applicant’s inventive concept.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 571-270-1292. 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
Prosecution Insights