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 Application
Claim 1 is amended and claim 5 is cancelled, submitted on 4/13/2026. Claims 1-3 and 7-13 are pending with claims 8-12 remaining withdrawn. Claims 1-3, 7, and 13 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
1. 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.
2. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
3. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
4. Claims 1-3, 7, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20180026268 A1, IDS of 2/14/2024), in view of Han (US 20160365570 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a lithium nickel cobalt manganese-based oxide represented by Chemical Formula 1 (LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2, [0183]; LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2, [0198]) including secondary particles obtained by agglomerating at least one primary particle ([0183] and FIGs. 1 C-D);
[Chemical Formula 1]
Lia[NixCoyMnz]tM1-tO2-pXp
wherein, in Chemical Formula 1,
M is any one element selected from Al, Mg, Sn, Ca, Ge, Ga, B, Ti, Mo, Nb, and W
X is any one element selected from F, N, and P,
0.8≤a≤1.3,
0.6≤x≤0.95, 0<y≤0.2, 0<z≤0.2, x+y+z=1, 0≤t≤1, and 0≤p≤0.1.
Kim further discloses a positive electrode ([0016]) nickel-based active material for a lithium secondary battery includes at least one secondary particle including an aggregate of two or more primary particles, at least a portion of the secondary particle has a radial alignment structure, and a hetero-element compound is positioned between the primary particles ([0050]), and the hetero-element compound may be for example, ZrO2, Al2O3 …, or the like ([0087]). Referring to FIG. 1C, a secondary particle of the nickel-based active material 10 includes an outer portion 14 and an inner portion 12. The hetero-element compound 15 may be present between plate particles and on surfaces of the plate particles ([0094]). The inner portion may have a pore size of …, about 150 nm to about 550 nm, and the outer portion may have a pore size of less than about 150 nm [0057], which reads on the claimed “metal oxide particles having a nano-sized average diameter (D50) and disposed inside the secondary particles” because the hetero-element compounds of ZrO2, Al2O3 are metal oxides; and since the metal oxides are positioned between the primary particles (15, FIG. 1C), metal oxide particles disposed inside the secondary particles should be smaller than the pore size of the outer portion of a secondary particle, thus metal oxide particles have a nano-sized average diameter (D50), and an average particle diameter (D50) of the metal oxide should be less than 150 nm.
Even though Kim does not explicitly disclose the metal oxide has an average particle diameter (D50) of 50 nm to 80 nm, Kim discloses the desire of a nickel-based active material that could offer improved lifespan characteristics and reduced battery resistance and improved cell performance ([0005]-[0006]); and the size of the metallic hydroxide may be almost or substantially identical to that of the nickel-based active material,…, and the pore size of the outer portion may be about 50 nm to about 148 nm ([0127]). The range of pore size of the outer portion taught by Kim translates to the metal oxide would likely have an average particle diameter (D50) of 50 nm to about 148 nm, which encompasses the claimed range of an average particle diameter (D50) of the metal oxide being 50 nm to 80 nm with a shared lowed end value, 50 nm.
It would have been obvious for a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the average particle diameter (D50) of the metal oxide within the Kim’s taught range of 50 nm to about 148 nm according to the particle size of the nickel-based active material, with a reasonable expectation to arrive at a particle diameter value that falls within the overlapping portion of the taught range and the claimed range and obtain a successful cathode active material, in order to achieve a successful nickel-based active material that could offer improved lifespan characteristics and reduced battery resistance and improved cell performance, as desired by Kim, and thus meet the claim limitation “the metal oxide has an average particle diameter (D50) of 50 nm to 80 nm”.
While Kim discloses a concern that when a positive active material is used, cracks may be formed in the positive active material as charge/discharge cycling is repeated ([0004]); and a desire of a lithium secondary battery having improved lifespan characteristics and reduced battery resistance due to suppression or reduction of crack formation during charging/discharging cycling [0005]), Kim does not disclose that the secondary particles comprise a core portion in which molar content of nickel is constant and a shell portion which surrounds the outer surface of the core portion and has a concentration gradient in which molar content of nickel gradually decreases in a direction from the an interface with the core portion to outermost surface of the shell portion, wherein the concentration gradient is such that the ratio of nickel molar content at the outermost edge to nickel molar content at the interface with the core portion is in a range from 0.6 to 0.95.
Han teaches a similar problem of a cathode active material of the lithium secondary battery in that a metal component is desorbed from the cathode during storage at a high temperature under fully charged condition ([0005]); and in order to provide a lithium secondary battery which has excellent life-span property and penetration safety ([0007]), a cathode active material containing lithium-metal oxide of which at least one of metals has a continuous concentration gradient region between a core part and a surface part thereof ([0008]) is prepared. Han further teaches in Example 1 that a lithium-metal oxide with a whole composition of LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2, a core part composition of LiNi0.84Co0.11Mn0.05O2 and a surface part composition of LiNi0.78Co0.10Mn0.12O2, having a concentration gradient between the core part and the surface part as a cathode active material ([0083]). The concentration gradient of the prepared lithium-metal oxide is listed in Table 1. For the lithium-metal oxide particle with a distance between a core of a particle to the surface thereof, that is 5 µm, the measurement sites were present at an interval of 5/7 µm from the surface ([0084]). From the data shown in Table 1, Ni has a concentration gradient gradually decreases in a direction from the core portion to the outermost surface (from site 7 to 1, Table 1). Thus, the claim limitation “wherein the secondary particles comprise a core portion in which molar content of nickel is constant and a shell portion which surrounds the outer surface of the core portion and has a concentration gradient in which molar content of nickel gradually decreases in a direction from the an interface with the core portion to outermost surface of the shell portion” is met, because the core portion has a constant nickel molar content while the shell portion which surrounds the outer surface of the core portion of the instant claim corresponds to the surface part of Han; and since a distance between a core of a particle to the surface is 5 µm, it inherently also teaches the particle is a secondary particle.
Further, Han teaches in Table 1, the nickel molar content at the outermost site 1 is 0.7797 and at the core part site 7 is 0.8433 ([0084]), and the interface with the core portion should have a nickel molar content number the same as the core part site 7 because the core portion has a constant nickel molar content, therefore, the ratio of nickel molar content at the outermost edge to nickel molar content at the interface with the core portion is calculated to be 0.92, falling within the ratio range as claimed “the concentration gradient is such that the ratio of nickel molar content at the outermost edge to nickel molar content at the interface with the core portion is in a range from 0.6 to 0.95”.
It would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the secondary particles of the lithium nickel cobalt manganese-based oxide comprise a core portion with molar content of nickel being constant and a shell portion which surrounds the outer surface of the core portion and has a concentration gradient in which molar content of nickel gradually decreases in a direction from an interface with the core portion to outermost surface of the shell portion, wherein the concentration gradient is such that the ratio of nickel molar content at the outermost edge to nickel molar content at the interface with the core portion is in a range from 0.6 to 0.95, as taught by Han, in order to provide a lithium secondary battery having improved lifespan characteristics and reduced battery resistance due to suppression or reduction of crack formation during charging/discharging cycling.
Since modified Kim has disclosed the hetero-element compound positioned between the primary particles disposed inside the secondary particles of the nickel-based active material ([0050] and FIG. 1 C-D) as set forth above; and further discloses the hetero-element compound is coated on the grain-boundaries of the primary particles constituting the secondary particles ([0112]) , modified Kim inherently discloses the metal oxide remains within the internal pores of the secondary particles because the space between the grain-boundaries of primary particles forming the secondary particles are considered as internal pores.
Further, modified Kim discloses in Example 1 the metal oxide (Zirconium oxide) was dry-mixed with the secondary particle of a nickel-based active material using a high speed mixer at a rate of 2,000 rpm ([0181]) followed by a heat treatment at a temperature of about 850 °C ([0183]), based on which a skilled artisan would reasonably envisage the Zirconium oxide of Example 1 remains in a particulate state because the melting temperature of Zirconium oxide is about 2700 °C. Therefore, modified Kim anticipates the limitation as claimed “wherein the metal oxide particles remain in a particulate state within the internal pores of the secondary particles.”
Modified Kim seems using the amount of metal oxide (ZrO2 0.0015 mol based on 1 mol of cathode active material, [0182]) as a convenient example shown as Example 1 that translates to a metal content of Zr is 0.14 wt% based on 100 wt% of LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2, falling out of the range of 0.34 wt% to 0.7 wt% as claimed “wherein a metal content of the metal oxide is 0.34 wt% to 0.7 wt% based on 100 wt% of the cathode active material.”
Modified Kim further discloses the hetero-element may be included in an amount of about 0.001 mol to about 0.01 mol based on 1 mol of the transition metal of the nickel-based active material ([0053]). This molar range mathematically converts to a zirconium metal content of about 0.09 wt% to 0.9 wt% based on 100 wt% of the cathode active material, which encompasses and overlaps the claimed range of 0.34 wt% to 0.7 wt%.
Further, modified Kim discloses that through the coating of hetero-element compounds between primary particles, the influence (effects) of interfacial exposure during cracking may be reduced ([0099]). It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to adjust the amount of the hetero-element compounds within the taught ranges 0.09 wt% to 0.9 wt% in order to achieve an optimized balance between the effect of suppressing cracking and capacity and cycling performance of the cathode active material (shown in Tables 3 and 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to reasonably obtain a successful cathode active material with a metal content of metal oxide (ZrO2) value that falls within the claimed range of 0.34 wt% to 0.7 wt% with optimized results in suppressing cracking, capacity and cycling performance, under a routine optimization process regarding the amount of the hetero-element compounds in the cathode active material.
Regarding claim 2, modified Kim discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Kim discloses a nickel-based active material LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2, ([0198]), which reads on the claimed “wherein in Chemical Formula 1, 0.8≤x≤0.95, 0<y≤0.1, and 0<z≤0.1”.
Regarding claim 3, modified Kim discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Kim discloses the hetero-element compound may be for example, ZrO2, Al2O3 …, or the like ([0087]), which reads on the claimed “wherein the metal oxide comprises at least one selected from ZrO2, …, and a combination thereof”.
Regarding claim 7, Kim discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Kim further discloses secondary particles of the nickel-based active material (LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2) including a zirconium oxide coating were obtained ([0198]), which reads on the claimed “The cathode active material further comprises a coating layer disposed on the surface of the secondary particles.”
Regarding claim 13, modified Kim discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Kim further discloses a lithium secondary battery (Example 5, [0187]) comprising the cathode including a cathode active material of LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2-ZrO2 ([0183]); an anode (lithium metal electrode, [0190]); and a non-aqueous electrolyte ([0190]).
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant’s arguments regarding the amended claim 1 filed on 4/13/2026 have been fully considered but are not found persuasive.
First, the Applicant argued that this disclosure utilizes a distinctive manufacturing process where a hydroxide precursor undergoes an initial calcination to create a porous oxide precursor, which would ensure that the metal oxide remains in a particulate state within the internal pores of secondary particles, rather than merely forming a surface coating. (Remarks on P5).
The Examiner respectfully submits that claim 1 is a product claim, thus as long as Kim discloses the product or substantially similar structure of the product, the product claim limitation is met regardless the method of preparation is the same or not. Further, Kim uses similar hydroxide precursors (Ni0.6Co0.2Mn0.2(OH)2 and (LiOH.H2O) undergoing an initial calcination (first heat treatment at 800 °C, [0181]) to create a porous oxide precursor ([0057] and FIG. 1D) and hetero-element compound 15 present at grain boundary of primary particles of the nickel-based active material and/or on the surface of the primary particles ([0106] and FIG. 1D), which seems teaching a same method resulting in a substantially same product as claimed, in that the metal oxide ZrO2 in a particulate state is disposed inside the internal pores of secondary particles formed between grain boundaries of those primary plate particles 13, (FIG. 1D), not forming a surface coating of the secondary particle as Applicant argued. As visually depicted in Kim’s Figs. 1C and 1D, the hetero-element compound is explicitly shown positioned in the spaces/pores located between the plate-like primary particles within the interior of the secondary particle, directly satisfying the claimed structural relationship. Thus, this argument is not found persuasive.
Second, the Applicant argued that the method of the instant disclosure vs. conventional methods of adding heterogeneous elements has reduced initial resistance and enhanced structure stability. (Remarks on P6).
The Examiner respectfully submits that as established in response to the first argument, the method of Kim is substantially the same as being disclosed and argued by Applicant, this argument is moot. Examiner further notes Kim has disclosed benefits of reducing resistance increase and prolonging life span of the battery associated to suppressing or reducing crack formation ([0092]) and/or stress due to volume changes during lithium intercalation and deintercalation ([0099]). Thus, this argument is not found persuasive.
Third, the Applicant argues that Kim’s focus on crack suppression in a radial arrangement and Han’s emphasis on macroscopic concentration gradients do not provide a clear teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine these two references to achieve the specific structure of the present disclosure which retains nanosized metal oxide particles within internal pores in a particulate form. (Remarks on P6).
The Examiner respectfully submits that Kim desires a lithium secondary battery having improved lifespan characteristics and reduced battery resistance due to suppression or reduction of crack formation during charging/discharging cycling [0005]); and Han, in the same field of endeavor, aiming to provide a lithium secondary battery which has excellent life-span property and penetration safety ([0007]) via preparation a cathode active material containing lithium-metal oxide of which at least one of metals has a continuous concentration gradient region between a core part and a surface part thereof ([0008]). It would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined Han’s teaching to modify Kim’s nickel-based cathode active material of Example 1 ([0181-0183]), in order to solve the same life-span problem of a lithium battery, having an improved lifespan characteristics and reduced battery resistance due to suppression or reduction of crack formation during charging/discharging cycling, as desired by Kim.
Further Examiner notes that the argued significant advantageous has been taught by Kim, including reducing DC internal resistance (DC-IR), increased Coulombic efficiency (Kim: [0092]); and improving high-temperature stability (Kim: [0170]). Thus, this argument is not found persuasive, either.
Lastly, the Applicant argues that the amended claim 1 requires a metal content in the metal oxide is 0.34 wt% to 0.7 wt%.
The Examiner respectfully submits that this argument is not commensurate in scope with the claim because the amended claim 1 requires a metal content in the metal oxide is 0.34 wt% to 0.7 wt% based on 100 wt% of the cathode active material, but not a metal content in the metal oxide is 0.34 wt% to 0.7 wt%, as argued. Examiner further notes the corresponding limitation has been addressed in claim 1 rejection on P7-8 of this paper. Kim’s explicit disclosure of a hetero-element range of 0.001 mol to 0.01 mol encompasses a calculated weight percentage range of 0.09 wt% to 0.9 wt% which directly overlaps and renders obvious the claimed range of 0.34 wt% to 0.7 wt% based on the total weight of the cathode active material. Thus this argument is moot.
Conclusion
6. 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 extension fee 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.
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAN LUO whose telephone number is (571)270-5753. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00AM -5:00PM ET. ET.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached on (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 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.
/K. L./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/Haroon S. Sheikh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
Prosecution Insights