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 .
Status of Claims
Claim 1 is amended. Claims 10 and 13 are canceled. Claim 19 is withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-9, 11-12, 14-18 & 20-23 are currently pending.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-9, 16-18, 20 & 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2015/0010819 A1) in view of Yanagihara (US 2017/0187035 A1) and Han (US 2016/0126542 A1).
Regarding claims 1-2, 7-9, 16, 20 & 23, Lee teaches a rechargeable lithium battery comprising: an electrode assembly including a positive electrode comprising a positive active material, a negative electrode comprising an a negative active material, and a separator disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode; and a case accommodating the electrode assembly and an electrolyte impregnating the electrode assembly ([0112]-[0133]), wherein the positive active material comprises: a lithium nickel-based composite oxide represented by the claimed chemical formula 1 and comprising large particle diameter particles having an average particle diameter (D50) of about 11 microns to about 15 microns and small diameter particles having an average particle diameter (D50) of about 2 microns to about 5 microns, wherein the large diameter particles comprise a first set of secondary particles comprising a first plurality of primary particles and the small diameter particles comprise a second set of secondary particles comprising a second plurality of primary particles ([0035]-[0040], [0061]-[0067] & [0137]-[0144]). Lee is silent as to only the small diameter particles comprising lithium halide within the small diameter particles or on surfaces thereof in an amount of about 0.1 mol to about 10 mol based on 10 mol of the small diameter particles. Yanagihara teaches a positive active material comprising a lithium nickel-based composite oxide secondary particles, formed by aggregating a plurality of primary particles, having an average particle diameter (D50) of 0.5 microns to 10 microns and comprising a coating such as LiF in the form of a film on the surface of the particles ([0039]-[0046], [0049], [0069]-[0070], [0073] & [0264]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to form a film comprising LiF on the surface of Lee’s small diameter particles in order to prevent the lithium composite oxide from coming into contact with the electrolyte solution thereby suppressing metal elution into the electrolyte and to further improve cycle characteristics as taught by Yanagihara ([0068]-[0069]). Han teaches a positive electrode active material comprising a lithium nickel-based composite oxide and a lithium halide such as LiF on surfaces of the lithium nickel-based composite oxide, wherein the amount of LiF is in an amount of about 0.1 parts by weight to about 5 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the lithium nickel-based composite oxide ([0042]-[0062]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the LiF in an amount of about 0.1 parts by weight to about 5 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of modified Lee’s small diameter particles, composed of a lithium nickel-based composite oxide similarly to Han, because such a range is sufficient to suppress structural changes to the surface of the positive electrode active material thereby preventing a side reaction with the electrolyte as taught by Han ([0062]). While Han teaches the content of LiF in terms of a weight basis (i.e 0.1 to 5 parts by weight LiF for 100 parts by weight of the core), the content of LiF can be converted to a mol basis using the known molar masses of LiF (25.94 g/mol) and LiCoO2 (97.84 g/mol) which is used as the core in Ex 31 of Yanagihara which uses LiF as a coating material. Thus, for a range of 0.1 to 5 parts by weight LiF based on 100 parts by weight of the core, a corresponding content of LiF in terms of a mole basis is from 0.37 mol to 1.8 mol based on 100 moles of the core which overlaps with the presently claimed range of 0.1 mol to 1 mol based on 100 moles of the small diameter particles. “[A]fter KSR, the presence of a known result effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process”. See MPEP 2155.05 II(B). While modified Lee does not explicitly teach the positive electrode active material having a fullwidth at half maximum (FWHM) of (003) plane peak in a X-ray diffraction spectrum analysis being about 0.15 to about 0.17 (claim 1) and being about 0.1535 to about 0.17 (claim 23), it is noted that modified Lee, similarly to the present invention, discloses small-diameter particles which are coated with LiF with the large-diameter excluding a LiF coating, wherein the content of LiF overlaps with that of the present invention as noted above. Accordingly, modified Lee’s positive electrode active material would be expected to possess the claimed FWHM of about 0.153 to about 0.17. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”. See MPEP 2112.01 I.
Regarding claim 3, Lee as modified by Yanagihara and Han teaches the positive active material of claim 1. Lee further teaches the small diameter particles comprising single crystal particles ([0048] & [0050]).
Regarding claim 6, Lee as modified by Yanagihara and Han teaches the positive active material of claim 1. Lee further teaches the large diameter particles being comprised in an amount of 70 wt% to 90 wt% based on a total weight of the large diameter particles and the small diameter particles ([0040]).
Regarding claim 17, Lee as modified by Yanagihara and Han teaches the positive active material of claim 1. Lee further teaches the positive active material comprising about 1,400 ppm or less of residual lithium on the surface (Table 1; [0050] & [0056]).
Regarding claim 18, Lee as modified by Yanagihara and Han teaches the positive active material of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach the positive active material having a mixture density of about 3.1 g/cc to about 3.4 g/cc. However, Lee discloses, a mixture density in a range of 3.3 g/cc to 3.5 g/cc being known for Ni-based cathode active materials ([0048]). Thus, the claimed range would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 4-5, 11-12 & 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2015/0010819 A1), Yanagihara (US 2017/0187035 A1) and Han (US 2016/0126542 A1), as applied to claims 1-3, 6-9, 16-18, 20 & 23 above, and further in view of Kim (US 2018/0026268 A1).
Regarding claims 4-5, 11-12 & 14-15, Lee as modified by Yanagihara and Han teaches the positive active material of claim 1 but is silent as to the claimed average thicknesses of the first set and second set of secondary particles (claims 4-5) and as to the limitations of claims 11-12 & 14-15. Kim teaches a positive active material comprising lithium nickel-based composite oxide secondary particles in which a plurality of plate-shaped primary particles are aggregated, wherein the secondary particles have a one centered radial arrangement in which (003) planes of the plurality of plate shaped primary particles are oriented in a direction substantially perpendicular to the surface of the secondary particles ([0050]-[0072] & [0076]-[0088]). Kim further teaches an average thickness of the primary particles ranging from 1 nm to 250 nm (Fig. 17B; [0071]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to set an average thickness of the large diameter particles and the small diameter particles of modified Lee to the claimed ranges as a suitable thickness for the primary particles because a relatively large number of lithium diffusion paths and a relatively large number of the crystal planes capable of transferring lithium to the outside (e.g., outer portion) may be exposed on the surface of the nickel-based active material, thereby enhancing the rate of lithium diffusion such that high initial efficiency and capacity may be achieved of as taught by Kim ([0072]). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to provide the small diameter particles and large diameter particles of Lee with a one-centered radial arrangement, as described in above, because surface pores formed between the plate-type primary particles may be directed toward the center, thereby promoting lithium diffusion between the surface and center of the secondary particles and to enable or support uniform shrinkage and expansion during intercalation and deintercalation of lithium as taught by Kim ([0072]).
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2015/0010819 A1), Yanagihara (US 2017/0187035 A1) and Han (US 2016/0126542 A1), as applied to claims 1-3, 6-9, 16-18, 20 & 23 above, and further in view of Takamori (US 2022/0029158 A1).
Regarding claim 21-22, Lee as modified by Yanagihara and Han teaches the positive active material of claims 1-2, respectively, but is silent as to the large-diameter particles having a BET surface area of about 0.1 m2/g to about 0.6 m2/g (claim 21) and the small-diameter particles having a BET surface area of about 0.1 m2/g to about 0.6 m2/g (claim 22). Takamori teaches a positive electrode active material mixture including a first lithium transition metal composite oxide and a second lithium transition metal composite oxide, wherein the first lithium transition metal composite oxide is a small-diameter particle and the second lithium transition metal composite oxide a large-diameter particle and wherein each of the first and second lithium-transition metal composite oxide particles have a specific surface area (BET) from preferably 0.2 m2/g to 1.4 m2/g ([0025]-[0027] & [0046]-[0050]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the
present invention, to set the specific surface area of each of the first and second lithium-transition
metal composite oxide particles to a range of 0.2 m2/g to 1.4 m2/g in view of improving the
volumetric capacity and the volumetric capacity retention as taught by Takamori ([0048]-[0049]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/01/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to Applicant’s arguments that (1) Lee does not teach or suggest small diameter particles with an average particle size ranging from about 2 microns to about 5 microns, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Contrary to Applicant’s assertions, Lee’s inventive embodiment includes a combination of single particles, small secondary particles and large secondary particles which are used to form the cathode active material ([0036]-[0040] & [0137]-[0144]). Notably, the single particles used in the exemplary embodiment have an average particle size of 4 microns and the small secondary particles used have an average particle size of 6 microns ([0141]). However, Lee more broadly discloses that the small secondary particles can have an average particle size ranging from about 5 microns to about 6 microns ([0038]). Thus, when the average particle size of the small secondary particles is set to 5 microns, the claimed average particle diameter of about 2 microns to about 5 microns would be rendered obvious over Lee since the single particles having an average particle diameter of 4 microns and the small secondary particles having an average particle diameter of 5 microns read on the claimed small diameter particles and would necessarily have an average particle diameter between 4 microns and 5 microns. As to Applicant’s arguments that neither Yanagihara nor Lee provides any guidance regarding the particle size range below 10 microns that can be coated, the examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted in the Non-Final Office Action on 12/01/2025, Yanagihara does not explicitly teach providing the LiF coating only on the small diameter particles, however Yanagihara teaches specifically “when the average particle size exceeds 10 μm, a ratio of the covering layer 4 that mitigates distortion of lattices and crystallites of the core particles 3 occurring due to a Li insertion and separation reaction necessary for phase transition decreases. Therefore, there is a risk of a cycle characteristic deteriorating”. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would infer, based on Yanagihara’s teachings, the ratio of the LiF coating (i.e relative to the average particle size of the active material) necessarily depends on the average particle size of the active material. Since the LiF coating is required to be from 1 nm to 50 nm, uniformity of the LiF coating and reversibility of phase transition can be improved thereby improving cycle characteristics while reducing an amount of metal elution from the LiF coating as taught by Yanagihara ([0062]). However, as noted above, when the average particle size of the active material is greater than 10 microns, the ratio of the LiF coating is reduced (which is undesirable because it results in reduced cycle characteristics) due to the larger average particle size of the active material. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the LiF only on active material particles having an average particle size ranging from 0.5 microns to 10 microns because when the LiF coating is formed on active material particles having an average particle size greater than 10 microns, the ratio of the LiF coating is reduced which undesirably presents a risk of cycle characteristics deterioration. Based on Yanagihara’s disclosure, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to provide a LiF coating on active material particles having an average particle size exceeding 10 microns due to a risk of cycle characteristics deterioration resulting from a decreased ratio of LiF coating. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would only looks to coat the single particles and small secondary particles of Lee (i.e reading on the claimed small diameter particles) since those only particles in Lee’s cathode active material that have an average particle size ranging from .0.5 micron to 10 microns. As previously noted, Applicant’s arguments of criticality based on the coating of only the small diameter particles is not found to be persuasive since Yanagihara guides one of ordinary skill in the art away from providing the lithium halide coating on large diameter particles (i.e greater than 10 microns) while simultaneously providing motivation for forming the lithium halide coating on small diameter particles. With regards to Applicant’s arguments that “even if Lee and Yanagihara were combined, it would not have been possible for a person having ordinary skill in the art to derive the claimed positive active material wherein the lithium halide is contained only in the small sized particles, which are separate particles from large particles in the form of secondary particles”, it is noted that the small diameter particles of Lee (i.e single particles and small secondary particles) are formed from a single process ([0137]-[0142]) whereas the large secondary particles of Lee are formed from a second, separate, process ([0143]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be apprised to perform the lithium halide coating process described in Yanagihara independently from the large diameter particles of Lee since the small diameter and large diameter particles are separately and mixed thereafter to produce the cathode active material ([0144]).
In view of the foregoing, claims 1-9, 11-12, 14-18 & 20-23 stand rejected.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANAEL T ZEMUI whose telephone number is (571)272-4894. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm (EST).
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, BARBARA GILLIAM can be reached on (571)272-1330. 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.
/NATHANAEL T ZEMUI/Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights