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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/27/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, 11, and 14-16 are currently pending;
Claims 4, 6, 10, and 12-13 are currently canceled;
Claim 1 is currently amended.
Status of Objections and Rejections Pending Since the Office Action Dated 10/01/2025
The 103 rejections of claims 1-3, 5, 7-11, and 13-16 are withdrawn and replaced with new 103 rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 02/27/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-5, 7-11, and 13-16 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Son in view of Kobayashi, Son in view of Kobayashi and Jin, Son in view of Kobayashi and Hwang, Son in view of Kobayashi and Kim, and Son in view of Kobayashi and Han.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 7, and 15 – 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son et al. (US 20220328807 A1), hereinafter Son, in view of Kobayashi et al. (US-20170288221-A1), hereinafter Kobayashi.
Regarding claim 1, Son teaches a cathode for a lithium secondary battery, comprising: a cathode current collector; and a first cathode active material layer including a first cathode active material particle ([0017]; [0070]; fig. 2 [0056]), and a second cathode active material layer including a second cathode active material particle ([0018]; [0070]; fig. 2 [0056]), the first cathode active material layer and the second cathode active material layer being sequentially stacked from the cathode current collector, wherein a weight ratio of the second cathode active material particle and the first cathode active material particles included in the cathode is 1:9 to 6:4 ([0078] weight ratio of the first cathode active material and the second cathode active material is 3:7 to 5:5, which is fully within the claimed range), wherein the first cathode active material particle and the second cathode active material particle have different compositions or particle structures from each other([0070]-[0075] formula 1-1 versus formula 1-2, wherein the content of Ni in the first cathode active material is 0.6 mol or more in comparison to the total number of moles of transition metals whereas the second cathode active material has a Ni content of 0.6 mol or less in comparison to the total number of moles of transition metals), and the first cathode active material particle and the second cathode active material particle include lithium metal oxides containing nickel ([0070]-[0075] formula 1-1 and formula 1-2, wherein the content of Ni in the first cathode active material is 0.6 mol or more in comparison to the total number of moles of transition metals whereas the second cathode active material has a Ni content of 0.6 mol or less in comparison to the total number of moles of transition metals), wherein the second cathode active material particle further includes cobalt, and a molar ratio of cobalt among metals except for lithium in the second cathode active material particle is 15% or less ([0069]-[0075] Formula 1-2, 1-y’-z’ wherein 0.1≤y’≤0.98, 0<z’<0.5 and the moles of Ni is 0.6 mol or less in comparison to the total number of moles of transition metals overlaps 15% or less), wherein a nickel content in the second cathode active material particle is less than the nickel content in the first cathode active material particle nickel ([0070]-[0075] formula 1-1 and formula 1-2, wherein the content of Ni in the first cathode active material is 0.6 mol or more in comparison to the total number of moles of transition metals whereas the second cathode active material has a Ni content of 0.6 mol or less in comparison to the total number of moles of transition metals), wherein the first cathode active material particle includes a lithium metal oxide represented by Chemical Formula 1:
[Chemical Formula 1]
LixNiaM1bM2cOy
wherein, in Chemical Formula 1, M1 and M2 each includes at least one element selected from the group consisting of Co, Mn, Na, Mg, Ca, Ti, V, Cr, Cu, Zn, Ge, Sr, Ag, Ba, Zr, Nb, Mo, Al, Ga and B, and 0<x≤ 1.2, 2≤y≤2.02, 0.6≤a≤0.95, and 0.05≤b+c≤0.4 ([0069]-[0075] Formula 1-1 of Lix’Niy’Co1-y’-z’Alz’O2 wherein 0.9≤x’≤1.2, 0.1≤y’≤0.98, 0<z’<0.5, and 0<1-y’-z’<0.5 and specifically y’ of Ni is 6 mol or more based on the total number of moles of transition metals, in comparison with chemical formula 1 of the instant. M1 is Co, M2 is Al, y is 2, a is within the claimed range due to overlap, b is within the claimed range due to overlap, and c is within the claimed range due to overlap; formula 1-2 also works as well),
wherein the second cathode active material particle includes a lithium metal oxide represented by Chemical Formula 2:
[Chemical Formula 2]
LixNiaCobMncM4dM5eOy,
wherein, in Chemical Formula 2, M4 includes at least one element selected from the group consisting of Ti, Zr, Al, Mg, Si, B and Cr, M5 includes at least one element selected from the group consisting of Sr, Y, W and Mo, and 0<x<1.5, 2≤y≤2.02, 0.5≤a≤0.75, 0.05≤b≤0.15, 0.20≤c≤0.30, 0≤d≤0.03, 0≤e≤0.03 and 0.98≤a+b+c≤1.03 ([0070] Formula 1-2 LixNiy’Co1-y’-z’Mnz’O2 wherein 0.9≤x’≤1.2, 0.1≤y’≤0.98, 0<z’<0.5, and 0<1-y’-z’<0.5, in comparison with Chemical formula 2 of the instant, chemical formula 2 of the instant wherein d and e are 0, y is 2, x is within the claimed range due to overlap, c, where y’ of Son corresponding to Nickel is 0.6 mol or less based on the total number of moles of transition metals [0074]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Son fails to teach wherein the second cathode active material particle has a single particle shape and has a particle size distribution satisfying Equation 1:
[Equation 1]
1 ≤ D90/D10 ≤ 4
Wherein, in Equation 1, D90 and D10 represent particle size values corresponding to 90% and 10%, respectively, with respect to a maximum particle size in a volume-based cumulative particle size distribution.
Kobayashi is analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cathodes for secondary batteries (Abstract). Kobayashi teaches a positive electrode active material ([Abstract]; [0002]) which are single particles ([0014]; [0092]) having a particle size D90/D10 of 3 or less ([0021]) which overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Son to incorporate the teachings of Kobayashi and have the second cathode active material particle have a particle size distribution of 1 – 3. Doing so would provide improved output characteristics and durability (Kobayashi [0045]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Son teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Son also teaches wherein a molar ratio of nickel among metals except for lithium in the first cathode active material particle is 60% or more ([0069]-[0075] content of Ni in the first cathode active material may be 0.6 mol or more based on the total number of moles of transition metals). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 7, modified Son teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Son also teaches wherein a molar ratio of nickel among metals except for lithium in the second cathode active material particle is 50% or more ([0069]-[0074] nickel is 0.6 mol or less based on the total number of moles of transition metals). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 15, modified Son teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Son also teaches a lithium secondary battery, comprising: the cathode for a lithium secondary battery of claim 1 and an anode facing the cathode (fig. 1 cathode 3 and anode 2; [0049]; [0158]).
Regarding claim 16, Son teaches all of the limitations of claim 15. Son also teaches further comprising a separator interposed between the anode and cathode (fig. 1 separator 4; [0049]; [0149]; [0158]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son in view of Kobayashi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jin et al. (US 20220140320 A1), hereinafter Jin.
Regarding claim 2, modified Son teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Son fails to specify wherein the first cathode active material particle has a secondary particle structure in which primary particles are assembled.
Jin is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of lithium metal oxide cathodes for secondary batteries ([0002]; [0040]). Jin teaches wherein the first cathode active material particle has a secondary particle structure in which primary particles are assembled ([0028] secondary particles formed by agglomerating plurality of primary particles; [0048]; first positive electrode active material with a relatively large average particle diameter formed of secondary particles).
Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified and defined the particle type of the first cathode active material of Son such that the first cathode active material particle has a secondary particle structure in which primary particles are assembled. Doing so allows for a contact area between the first positive electrode active material and the electrolyte solution to be increased, and the movement distance of lithium ions in the first positive electrode active material is reduced, thereby facilitating the realization of high capacity and high output characteristics (Jin [0048]).
Claims 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son in view of Kobayashi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hwang et al. (US 20180145313 A1), hereinafter Hwang.
Regarding claim 5, modified Son teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Son fails to teach wherein the first cathode active material particle includes a concentration gradient region between a central portion and a surface, and a concentration gradient of at least one metal is formed in the concentration gradient region.
Hwang is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cathodes for secondary batteries ([0010]). Hwang teaches wherein the first cathode active material particle includes a concentration gradient region between a central portion and a surface, an a concentration gradient of at least one metal is formed in the concentration gradient region ([0018]; [0020]; [0050]-[0053]; [0057]-[0059] concentration gradient of at least one metal except for lithium; [0066] the metal may be lithium, causing positive effects).
Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Son such that the first cathode active material particle includes a concentration gradient region between a central portion and a surface, an a concentration gradient of at least one metal is formed in the concentration gradient region. Doing so allows for beneficial effects dependent on the type of metal formed in the concentration gradient region, for example improvement in capacity while preventing the defects from the penetration and a life-time reduction in the case of nickel (Hwang [0066]) or in an alternative the defects from the penetration such as ignition or short-circuit through the surface may be suppressed or reduced, and the life-time of the lithium secondary battery may be also enhanced in the case of manganese (Hwang [0067]; alternatively see [0068] for positive effects of cobalt; alternatively see [0035] for general high capacity and power).
Regarding claim 8, modified Son teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Son fails to teach wherein elements of a lithium metal oxide included in the second cathode active material particle have constant concentrations from a central portion to a surface.
Hwang is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cathodes for secondary batteries ([0010]). Hwang teaches teach wherein elements of a lithium metal oxide included in the second cathode active material particle have constant concentrations from a central portion to a surface ([0010]; [0021]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Son such that elements of a lithium metal oxide included in the second cathode active material particle have constant concentrations from a central portion to a surface. Doing so allows for penetration stability and thermal stability of the battery (Hwang [0035]).
Claims 9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son in view of Kobayashi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US-20190036154-A1), hereinafter Kim.
Regarding claim 9, modified Son teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Son fails to teach wherein an average particle diameter of the second cathode active material particle is in a range from 3 μm to 6 μm.
Kim is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of multilayer cathodes for batteries ([0008]). Kim teaches wherein an average particle diameter of the second cathode active material particle is in a range from 3 μm to 6 μm ([0034] the average particle diameter of the second positive electrode is 1 top 15 μm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Son such that the average particle diameter of the second cathode active material particle is in a range from 3 μm to 6 μm. Doing so allows for, when a metal body penetrates from the outside, the resistance between the positive electrode and the metal body is significantly increased without deteriorating the output properties (Kim [0033]), and the stability is improved (Kim [0027]-[0029]).
Regarding claim 14, modified Son teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Son fails to teach wherein an average diameter of the second cathode active material particle is smaller than that of the first cathode active material particle.
Kim is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of multilayer cathodes for batteries ([0008]). Kim teaches wherein an average diameter of the second cathode active material particle is smaller than that of the first cathode active material particle ([0024]-[0025] the first positive electrode active material in the first layer has a relatively large particle diameter whereas the second positive electrode active material on the second, upper layer has a relatively small particle diameter; [0033]-[0036]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Son such that an average diameter of the second cathode active material particle is smaller than that of the first cathode active material particle. Doing so allows for, when a metal body penetrates from the outside, the resistance between the positive electrode and the metal body is significantly increased without deteriorating the output properties (Kim [0033]), and the stability is improved (Kim [0027]-[0029]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son in view of Kobayashi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Han et al. (US-20200136141-A1), hereinafter Han.
Regarding claim 11, modified Son teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Son fails to teach wherein a crystallite size of the second cathode active material particle is in a range from 200 nm to 600 nm.
Han is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cathodes for batteries ([0001]). Han teaches wherein a crystallite size of the second cathode active material particle is in a range from 200 nm to 600 nm ([0066] lithium composite transition metal oxide in a single particle; [0073] crystallite size of 180 nm to 400 nm).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Son such as to define a crystallite size of the second cathode active material particle to be in a range from 200 nm to 600 nm. Doing so helps suppress particle breakage and improve life characteristics and stability (Han [0073]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADISON L KYLE whose telephone number is (571)272-0164. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 AM - 5 PM 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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571) 272-3433. 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.
/M.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights