DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the June 16th, 2025 arguments and remarks (“Remarks”).
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 Amendments
In response to the amendments received in the Remarks on June 16th, 2025:
Claims 1-3, 5-12, 14, and 16-19 are pending in the current application. Claims 1, 5, and 9 have been amended. Claims 3 and 11 stand withdrawn. Claims 4, 13, and 15 have been cancelled.
Claim 1 has been amended to further specify wherein an amount of the large secondary particles is higher than an amount of the small secondary particles, wherein an amount of the large crystal particles is at most the amount of the small secondary particles, and wherein a mixture density of the positive active material layer is 4.0 g/cm3 or greater. The amendment is supported by the Applicant’s originally filed disclosure, including paragraphs [0052], [0147], and [0152] of Applicant’s own PG Publication.
The previous rejection under 35 USC 112 is overcome in light of the amendment.
The cores of the previous prior art-based rejections have been overcome in light of the amendment. All changes made to the rejection are necessitated by the amendment.
Prior Art
Previously cited Choi US PG Publication 2019/0148717 (“Choi”)
Previously cited Du WO2020134781 (“Du”)
Previously cited Lee US PG Publication 2015/0010819 (“Lee”)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed with the Remarks on June 16th, 2025 with respect to Claims 1-2, 5-10, 12, 14, and 16-19 are based on the claims as amended. While Applicant’s arguments are acknowledged, they are found to be moot in view of the new grounds of rejection, presented below, as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the Claims.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 2 recites the limitation “layer comprising nickel-based active material.” This should most likely read (with emphasis) “layer comprising a nickel-based active material.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claims 1-2, 5-8, 10, 12, 14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi US PG Publication 2019/0148717 in view of Du WO2020134781 (machine translation provided in a previous Office Action - for purposes of examination US PG Publication 2021/0126242 is cited throughout) and Lee US PG Publication 2015/0010819.
Regarding Claim 1, Choi discloses a positive electrode (i.e. cathode plate) comprising a positive active material layer (i.e. cathode active material composition for a lithium secondary battery) ([0002]-[0005], [0014]-[0015]) comprising a nickel-based active material (as shown in Chemical Formulas 1 and 2) having between 59 and 99 mol% (which overlaps the claimed range of 80 mol% or more) of nickel with respect to 100 mol% of total metal elements of the nickel-based active material excluding lithium ([0016]-[0017] wherein in Chemical Formula 1 Lia1Nix1Coy1Mnz1M1-x1-y1-z1O2 and Chemical Formula 2 Lia2Nix2Coy2Mnz2M1-x2-y2-z2O2 0.6≤x1≤0.99 and 0.59≤x2≤0.98),
the nickel-based active material comprising:
large secondary particles (i.e. particle 1) having a size in a range of 6 µm to 30 µm (which encompasses the claimed range of 10 µm to 20 µm) ([0027]); and
small secondary particles (i.e. particle 2) having a size in a range of 1 µm to 6 µm (which falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of 1 µm to 7 µm) ([0027]),
wherein the large secondary particles have a higher percentage of nickel compared to a percentage of nickel in the small secondary particles ([0023]),
wherein an amount (i.e. wt%) of the large secondary particles is higher than an amount (i.e. wt%) of the small secondary particles ([0024]).
Choi fails to disclose wherein each of the large and small secondary particles comprise an aggregate of primary particles having a size of 1 µm or less and large crystal particles comprising primary particles having a size in a range of 1 µm to 5 µm.
However, Du discloses a positive electrode plate comprising a positive active material layer (i.e. positive active substance layer) ([0061]) comprising a nickel-based active material (i.e. lithium-nickel transition metal oxide) ([0017], [0061]) having between 66.5 and 98 mol% of nickel with respect to 100 mol% of total metal elements of the nickel-based active material excluding lithium ([0017]-[0020]).
Du teaches combining secondary particles (with a range of sizes [0028]) each comprising an aggregate of primary particles having a size of 200 nm to 500 nm ([0041]-[0042]) with one body crystal particles comprising primary particles having a size in a range of 3 µm to 5 µm and a nickel content between 66.5 and 98 mol% with respect to 100 mol% of total metal elements excluding lithium ([0019]-[0020],[0022]-[0023], [0043]-[0045]) wherein the secondary particles have a higher percentage of nickel compared to a percentage of nickel in the crystal particles (as exemplified by Example 8 in Table 1 and [0098] wherein the secondary particles comprise 26 mol% more of nickel than the large crystal particles) and a mass ratio between the secondary particles and crystal particles is between 10:1 and 1:1 ([0045]) in order to maximize the degree of crystallinity and particle size distribution in order to achieve good cycling performance ([0022]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the active material of the positive electrode of Choi such that the large and secondary particles each comprise an aggregate of primary particles having a size of 200 nm to 500 nm (which falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of 1 µm or less); the active material further comprises large one body crystal particles comprising primary particles having a size in a range of 3 µm to 5 µm (which falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of 1 µm to 5 µm); wherein the crystal particles have a nickel content between 66.5 and 98 mol% with respect to 100 mol% of total metal elements excluding lithium; wherein the (large and small) secondary particles have a higher percentage of nickel compared to a percentage of nickel in the crystal particles; and wherein a mass ratio between the secondary particles and crystal particles is between 10:1 and 1:1, in order to maximize the degree of crystallinity and particle size distribution in order to achieve good cycling performance, as taught by Du.
The skilled artisan would recognize that if Choi in view of Du discloses a mass ratio range of 10:1 to 1:1 between the (large and small) secondary particles and the crystal particles (Du [0045]) and Choi discloses a mass ratio (wherein mass and weight are directly proportional and therefore mass% and weight% are equivalent) of 99:1 to 60:40 between the large and small secondary particles ([0024]), then Choi in view of Du discloses a mass ratio between 0.99:0.01:1 and 6:4:1 between the large secondary particles: small secondary particles: crystal particles (which encompasses the claimed range of wherein an amount of the large crystal particles is at most the amount of the small secondary particles).
Choi in view of Du fails to disclose wherein a mixture density of the positive active material layer is 4.0 g/cm3 or greater.
However, Lee discloses a cathode (positive electrode) active material ([0009]) comprising a nickel-based lithium transition metal oxide of at least small and large secondary particles ([0013]).
Lee teaches the use of a cathode active material layer with a mixture density of 3.9 g/cm3 or greater in order to prevent the degradation of high rate characteristics ([0097]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the active material of the positive electrode of Choi in view of Du to have a mixture density of 3.9 g/cm3or greater (which encompasses the claimed range of 4.0 g/cm3 or greater) in order to prevent the degradation of high rate characteristics, as taught by Lee.
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).
Regarding Claim 2, Choi in view of Du and Lee teaches the instantly claimed nickel-based active material according to Claim 1, and (as previously described in the rejection of Claim 1) Choi in view of Du and Lee discloses wherein the large crystal particles are each a one body particle (which meets the claim limitation of a one body particle or each have a monolithic structure) (Du [0022]-[0023]).
Regarding Claim 5, Choi in view of Du and Lee teaches the instantly claimed nickel-based active material according to Claim 1, and (as previously described in the rejection of Claim 1) Choi discloses wherein an amount of nickel in the small secondary particles is 59-98 mol% ([0016]-[0017] based on Chemical Formula 2 and x2) and Choi in view of Du and Lee discloses wherein an amount of nickel in the large crystal particles is 66.5-98 mol% (Du [0019]-[0020]). Therefore, Choi in view of Du and Lee discloses wherein an amount of nickel in the large crystal particles is between -31.5 and 39 mol% greater than an amount of nickel in the small secondary particles.
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).
Regarding Claim 6, Choi in view of Du and Lee teaches the instantly claimed nickel-based active material according to Claim 1, and Choi discloses wherein an amount of nickel in the large secondary particles is 60 mol% to 99 mol% (which encompasses the claimed range of 90 mol% to 99 mol%) based on 100 mol% of the total metal elements of the nickel-based active material excluding lithium ([0016]-[0017] based on Chemical Formula 1 and x1).
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).
Regarding Claim 7, Choi in view of Du and Lee teaches the instantly claimed nickel-based active material according to Claim 1, and (as previously described in the rejection of Claim 1) Choi in view of Du and Lee discloses wherein an amount of nickel in the large crystal particles is 66.5 mol% to 98 mol% (which encompasses the claimed range of 80 mol% to 95 mol%) based on 100 mol% of the total metal elements of the nickel-based active material excluding lithium (Du [0019]-[0020]).
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).
Regarding Claim 8, Choi in view of Du and Lee teaches the instantly claimed nickel-based active material according to Claim 1, and Choi discloses wherein an amount of nickel in the small secondary particles is 59 mol% to 98 mol% (which encompasses the claimed range of 80 mol% to 95 mol%) based on 100 mol% of the total metal elements of the nickel-based active material excluding lithium ([0016]-[0017] based on Chemical Formula 2 and x2).
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).
Regarding Claim 10, Choi in view of Du and Lee teaches the instantly claimed nickel-based active material according to Claim 1, and Choi discloses wherein the nickel-based active material is a compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 Lia1Nix1Coy1Mnz1M1-x1-y1-z1O2 wherein 0.6≤x1≤0.99, 0.5≤a1≤1.5, 0.0≤y1≤0.3, 0.0≤z1≤0.3, and 0.0≤1-x1-y1-z1≤0.3 ([0016]-[0017]) which reads on the claimed Formula 2 when M is Mn and a is 0.
Regarding Claim 12, Choi in view of Du and Lee teaches the instantly claimed nickel-based active material according to Claim 1.
Choi in view of Du and Lee fails to disclose an X-ray diffraction analysis of the nickel-based active material.
However, Lee teaches a cathode material with an X-ray diffraction analysis including a FWHM of a (003) plane peak between 0.13o and 0.15o ([0052]), a FWHM of a (104) plane peak of about 0.105o to about 0.110o ([0051]), and a distance between a (108) plane peak and a (110) plane peak of less than 1o (Fig. 3D) such that the material has an increased crystallinity resulting in good safety at high voltages ([0051]-[0052]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the nickel-based active material of Choi in view of Du and Lee such that in an X-ray diffraction analysis of the nickel-based active material, a full width at half maximum (FWHM) of a (003) plane peak is between 0.13o and 0.15o (which falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of 0.120o to 0.270o), a FWHM of a (104) plane peak of about 0.105o to about 0.110o (which overlaps the claimed range of 0.120o to 0.270)o, and a distance between a (108) plane peak and a (110) plane peak of less than 1o (which encompasses the claimed range of 0.1o to 0.5o) such that the material has an increased crystallinity resulting in good safety at high voltages, as taught by Lee.
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).
PNG
media_image1.png
761
995
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 3D of Lee
Regarding Claim 14, Choi in view of Du and Lee teaches the instantly claimed nickel-based active material according to Claim 1, and Choi discloses a lithium secondary battery comprising the positive electrode of Claim 1, a negative electrode (i.e. anode), and an electrolyte therebetween ([0062]-[0066]).
Regarding Claim 16, Choi in view of Du and Lee teaches the instantly claimed nickel-based active material according to Claim 1, and (as previously described in the rejection of Claim 1) Choi in view of Du and Lee discloses wherein the large secondary particles have a higher percentage of nickel compared to the percentage of nickel in the large crystal particles (Du Table 1, [0098]), an amount of nickel in the large secondary particles is 60 mol% to 99 mol% (which encompasses the claimed range of 90 mol% to 99 mol%) based on 100 mol% of the total metal elements of the nickel-based active material excluding lithium (Choi [0016]-[0017]), and an amount of nickel in the large crystal particles is 66.5 mol% to 98 mol% (which encompasses the claimed range of 80 mol% to 95 mol%) based on 100 mol% of the total metal elements of the nickel-based active material excluding lithium (Du [0019]-[0020]).
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).
Regarding Claims 17 and 18, Choi in view of Du and Lee teaches the instantly claimed nickel-based active material of Claim 1.
Choi in view of Du and Lee fails to explicitly disclose in an X-ray diffraction analysis of the nickel-based active material, the full width at half maximum (FWHM) of a (003) plane peak is 0.120o to 0.270o and more specifically 0.120o to 0.150o.
However, Lee teaches a cathode material with an X-ray diffraction analysis including a FWHM of a (003) plane peak between 0.13o and 0.15o ([0052]) such that the material has an increased crystallinity resulting in good safety at high voltages ([0051]-[0052]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the nickel-based active material of Choi in view of Du and Lee such that in an X-ray diffraction analysis of the nickel-based active material, a full width at half maximum (FWHM) of a (003) plane peak is between 0.13o and 0.15o (which falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of 0.120o to 0.270o and more specifically 0.120o to 0.150o) such that the material has an increased crystallinity resulting in good safety at high voltages, as taught by Lee.
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).
Regarding Claim 19, Choi in view of Du and Lee teaches the instantly claimed nickel-based active material of Claim 1, and (as previously described in the rejection of Claim 1) Choi in view of Du and Lee discloses wherein a percentage of nickel in the large secondary particles is between 60 and 99 mol% (Choi [0016]-[0017]), a percentage of nickel in the large crystal particles is between 66.5 and 98 mol% (Du [0019]-[0020]), and a percentage of nickel in the small secondary particles is between 59 and 98 mol% (Choi [0016]-[0017]).
Therefore, Choi in view of Du and Lee discloses wherein a difference in the percentage of nickel between the large secondary particles and the large crystal particles is between -38 and 32.5 mol% (which encompasses the claimed range of 19 mol% or less).
Choi discloses a difference in the percentage of nickel between the large secondary particles and the small secondary particles is between 10 and 40 mol% (which encompasses the claimed range of 19 mol% or less) (Choi [0022]).
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).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi US PG Publication 2019/0148717 in view of Du WO2020134781 (machine translation provided in a previous Office Action - for purposes of examination US PG Publication 2021/0126242 is cited throughout).
Regarding Claim 9, Choi discloses a nickel-based active material (as shown in Chemical Formulas 1 and 2) having between 59 and 99 mol% (which overlaps the claimed range of 80 mol% or more) of nickel with respect to 100 mol% of total metal elements of the nickel-based active material excluding lithium ([0016]-[0017] wherein in Chemical Formula 1 Lia1Nix1Coy1Mnz1M1-x1-y1-z1O2 and Chemical Formula 2 Lia2Nix2Coy2Mnz2M1-x2-y2-z2O2 0.6≤x1≤0.99 and 0.59≤x2≤0.98),
the nickel-based active material comprising:
large secondary particles (i.e. particle 1) having a size in a range of 6 µm to 30 µm (which encompasses the claimed range of 10 µm to 20 µm) ([0027]); and
small secondary particles (i.e. particle 2) having a size in a range of 1 µm to 6 µm (which falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of 1 µm to 7 µm) ([0027]),
wherein an amount (i.e. wt%) of the large secondary particles is higher than an amount (i.e. wt%) of the small secondary particles ([0024]).
Choi fails to disclose wherein each of the large and small secondary particles comprise an aggregate of primary particles having a size of 1 µm or less and large crystal particles comprising primary particles having a size in a range of 1 µm to 5 µm.
However, Du discloses a positive electrode plate comprising a positive active material layer (i.e. positive active substance layer) ([0061]) comprising a nickel-based active material (i.e. lithium-nickel transition metal oxide) ([0017], [0061]) having between 66.5 and 98 mol% of nickel with respect to 100 mol% of total metal elements of the nickel-based active material excluding lithium ([0017]-[0020]).
Du teaches combining secondary particles (with a range of sizes [0028]) each comprising an aggregate of primary particles having a size of 200 nm to 500 nm ([0041]-[0042]) with crystal particles comprising primary particles having a size in a range of 3 µm to 5 µm ([0019]-[0020],[0022]-[0023], [0043]-[0045]) and a mass ratio between the secondary particles and crystal particles is between 10:1 and 1:1 ([0045]) in order to maximize the degree of crystallinity and particle size distribution in order to achieve good cycling performance ([0022]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the active material of the positive electrode of Choi such that the large and secondary particles each comprise an aggregate of primary particles having a size of 200 nm to 500 nm (which falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of 1 µm or less); the active material further comprises large one body crystal particles comprising primary particles having a size in a range of 3 µm to 5 µm (which falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of 1 µm to 5 µm); and wherein a mass ratio between the secondary particles and crystal particles is between 10:1 and 1:1, in order to maximize the degree of crystallinity and particle size distribution in order to achieve good cycling performance, as taught by Du.
The skilled artisan would recognize that if Choi in view of Du discloses a weight ratio (wherein mass and weight are directly proportional and therefore mass% and weight% are equivalent) range of 10:1 to 1:1 between the (large and small) secondary particles and the crystal particles (Du [0045]) and Choi discloses a weight ratio of 99:1 to 60:40 between the large and small secondary particles ([0024]), then Choi in view of Du discloses wherein an amount of the large crystal particles is 9 wt% to 50 wt% (which overlaps the claimed range of 5 wt% to 25 wt%) based on a total amount of 100 wt% of the large secondary particles, the large crystal particles, and the small secondary particles (based on a 10:1 and 1:1 ratio range between the (large and small) secondary particles to the large crystal particles); wherein an amount of the small secondary particles is at least 5 wt% (which overlaps the claimed range of 5 wt% to 25 wt%) based on a total amount of 100 wt% of the large secondary particles, the large crystal particles, and the small secondary particles (based on a minimum ratio between the (large and small) secondary particles to the large crystal particles of 1:1 (50%) and a minimum ratio between the large secondary particles and the small secondary particles of 99:1); and wherein an amount of the large secondary particles is at most 90.09 wt% (which encompasses the claimed range of an amount of the large secondary particles is higher than an amount of the large crystal particles) (based on a maximum ratio between the (large and small) secondary particles to the large crystal particles of 10:1 (91%) and a maximum ratio between the large secondary particles and the small secondary particles of 99:1).
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).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVIA MASON RUGGIERO whose telephone number is (703)756-4652. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7am-6pm 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, Ula Ruddock can be reached on (571)272-1481. 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.
/O.M.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729