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 is a final Office action in response to Applicant’s remarks and amendments filed on 03/13/2026. Claim 1 is amended. Claims 2 – 8 and 13 – 14 are canceled. Claims 15 – 20 remain withdrawn. Claims 1, 9 – 12, and 21 are pending in the current Office action.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections set forth in the previous Office action are withdrawn. A new grounds of the rejection, necessitated by applicant’s amendment {i.e. the selection of aluminum-containing oxide compound is narrower in scope}, is established below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new combination of references being used in the current rejection. Specifically, previously cited teaching references Choi (KR20160045029A), Cho (KR20030033912A, Imahashi (US PG Pub. 20140087262 A1) are used in combination with a newly cited primary reference: Baek (US PG Pub. 2021/0151754 A1) and newly cited teaching reference: Gao (CN108630923A).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 9, 11 – 12, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek (US PG Pub. 2021/0151754 A1, foreign priority date: 01/24/2018) in view of Choi (KR20160045029A, cited in Office action mailed 11/13/2025), Cho (KR20030033912A, cited in previous Office action mailed 03/18/2024), Imahashi (US PG Pub. 20140087262 A1, cited in previous Office action mailed) and Gao (CN108630923A, Machine translation provided).
Regarding Claim 1, Baek discloses a cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery ([0009]) comprising a lithium composite oxide ([0023 – 0026]) and a coating formed on a surface of the lithium composite oxide (glassy coating layer; [0023];[0034 – 0035]).
The coating layer in Baek includes compounds represented by LiaM1bOc where M1 is at least one selected from the group consisting of B, Al, Si, Ti, and P, and 1≤a≤4, 1≤b≤8, and 1≤c≤20 ([0043]). Baek further teaches a preference for having the coating contain at least one selected from the group consisting a lithium boron oxide and a lithium aluminum oxide and even more preferably a lithium-boron-aluminum oxide ([0038]). Within working examples Baek teaches coating compounds such as LiBO2, Li2B4O7, Li2B5AlO10 and LiB4Al7O17 ([0082 – 0084]). Coating sources explicitly taught by Baek include H3BO3, B2O3, HBPO4, (NH4)2B4O7, Al2O3, Al(OH)3, Al(SO4)3, or Al(NO3)3 ([0052]). When considering the general formula of the coating compound, the coating compounds included in the working examples, the taught coating sources, and Baek teaching a preference for having the coating contain at least one selected from the group consisting a lithium boron oxide and a lithium aluminum oxide and even more preferably a lithium-boron-aluminum oxide, Baek appears to include within its claimed scope a coating containing LiBO2 or LiB3O5 as a boron-containing oxide and LiAlB2O5 as an aluminum-containing compound selected LiAlB2O5, but does not explicitly disclose an embodiment of such a coating.
Choi teaches a coating for a lithium composite oxide including aluminum, aluminum oxide, and/or lithium aluminum oxide and boron, boron oxide, and/or boron aluminum oxide ([0060 – 0063]). Choi further teaches that the inclusion of both a boron and aluminum material in the coating allows for more effective improvements in surface roughness, which further improves battery life characteristics, resistance increases, and storage characteristics ([0063]).
Therefore, since Baek already teaches a preference for having the coating include a lithium-boron-aluminum oxide, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use for the coating layer of Baek a combination of a lithium boron oxide and a lithium boron-aluminum oxide, because such a selection of coating compounds would be a combination of coating compounds recognized by Baek to be functionally equivalent/useful for same purpose [See MPEP 2144.06(I)] and further, as taught by Cho, such a combination of coating compounds would have a reasonable expectation of success in providing the benefits of more effective improvements in surface roughness and thus further improved battery life characteristics, resistance increases, and storage characteristics.
Furthermore, when modifying Baek’s coating to include a lithium boron oxide and a lithium boron-aluminum oxide, selection of a lithium boron oxide {i.e. LiBO2 or LiB3O5} and a lithium-boron-aluminum oxide {i.e. LiAlB2O5} within the overlapping portion of the claimed lithium boron oxides and aluminum-containing oxides and the taught scope {refer to lithium boron oxides of working examples and coating layer Formula 1} would have been obvious before effective filing date of the claimed invention, because (1) such selection would be a selection of lithium boron oxide and lithium-boron-aluminum oxide from a finite list of coating compounds, and thus would have a reasonable expectation of success in being a suitable coating compound [See MPEP 2143(I)(E)] and (2), as suggested by Baek’s teachings, such coating compounds would have a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the desired coating effects of high active material capacity, improved particle strength, and reduced lithium by-products ([0013 – 0014]).
Modified Baek as established above, does not explicitly teach/disclose wherein aluminum is distributed to a depth of 37 – 50 nm from the surface od the cathode active material, and an atomic% of aluminum measured through X-ray photoelectron spectrometer surface analysis is 0% in a depth over 50nm from the surface of the cathode active material. {Examiner Note: The examiner is interpreting the limitation “from a/the surface of the cathode active material to mean a direction from the coating of the cathode active material toward the inside of the lithium composite oxide of the cathode active material, which appears to be supported by [0078 – 0081] of the instant specification}.
Cho, also directed to oxide-based coatings for lithium composite metal oxide cathode active materials ([26];29];[45]) teaches a coating layer that includes an oxide containing a coating element and further teaches that the oxide can contain mixtures of more than one element and exemplifies sodium, aluminum and boron, amongst other metals and elements, as options for the coating element ([45]). Cho further teaches that the elements utilized in the coating have a concentration gradient that decreases from the surface to the center of the lithium-containing compound, and that metal oxides exist as solid solution compounds up to a certain depth from the surface, but since compounds of elements capable of forming double bonds are highly reactive, they are mainly present on the surface of lithium-containing compound ([47]). Cho also teaches that a heat treatment is needed to coat the active material with an oxide-containing element. The heat treatment process in Cho is performed within a range of 100 to 700°C for 1 – 20 hours ([60]). Cho further teaches that, when the heat treatment is performed outside the disclosed temperature and time range, the coating element diffuses closer to the center of the lithium composite oxide particle which causes a reduction in capacity ([60]).
Since Baek also teaches forming the coating using a heat treatment at 500° C. to 750° C and exemplifies heating durations such as 5 hours ([0054];[0083]), based on Cho’s teachings, one with ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect some amount of the coating elements of Baek, and thus the aluminum, to be diffused into the lithium composite oxide and distributed to some amount depth from a surface of the cathode active material {i.e. from the coating of the cathode active material toward the inside of the lithium composite oxide of the cathode active material}.
As established above; however, modified Baek does not specifically teach a depth within the claimed range of 37 – 50 nm from the surface of the cathode active material {i.e. from the coating of the cathode active material toward the inside of the lithium composite oxide of the cathode active material}.
Imahashi teaches Li-Ni composite oxide particles represented by Lix(Ni1-y-w-z-vCoyMnwMazMbv)O2 and further teaches Ma being one amphoteric metal selected from the group consisting of Al, Zn and Sn and Mb being at least one metal selected from the group consisting of Bi, Sb, Zr, B and Mg ([0050]). Imahashi further teaches particularly having the concentration of the amphoteric metal on the outermost surface of the respective Li—Ni composite oxide particles be higher than a concentration of the amphoteric metal at a position spaced by 50 nm from the outermost surface toward a center of the respective Li—Ni composite oxide particles ([0052]). The concentration gradient of the amphoteric metal is taught by Imahashi to suppress generation of gases from the particles ([0052]). In one working examples 1 – 14, Imahashi particularly teaches Li-Ni composite oxide particles having Al as the amphoteric metal (See Table 1), and in Fig. 2, Imahashi explicitly shows the concentration of the Al approaching 0 as the distance from the outermost surface of the particle increases to 50 nm, and thus appears to suggest including little to no aluminum beyond 50 nm.
Therefore, since Baek is concerned with obtaining a high capacity active material and suppressing gas generation and suggests particle sizes between greater than 0.1 and less than 100 µm (Refer to Fig. 2; [0014 – 0015]), it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control the diffusion depth of the Al coating element in modified Baek to be no more than 50 nm from the coating {i.e. outermost surface of modified Baek particle}, as suggested by Imahashi and thus obtain a distribution of Al within the claimed range {i.e. 37 – 50 nm}, with a reasonable expectation of success in achieving a lithium composite particle capable of suppressing generation of gases from the particles (Imahashi: [0050]) and also preventing the Al from diffusing into the particle at a depth close to the center which, as taught by Cho causes a reduction in capacity.
Furthermore, because modified Baek as established above only includes the diffused Al to a depth of 50 nm from the surface of the cathode active material {i.e. from the coating of the cathode active material toward the inside of the lithium composite oxide of the cathode active material}, one with ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect an atomic% of aluminum measured through an X-ray photoelectron spectrometer surface analysis to be 0% in a depth of over 50 nm from the surface of cathode active material {i.e. from the coating of the cathode active material toward the inside of the lithium composite oxide of the cathode active material}.
Modified Baek further does not explicitly disclose the lithium composite oxide and coating containing sodium or further wherein sodium is distributed to a depth of 35 nm to 80 nm from a surface of the cathode active material {i.e. from the coating of the cathode active material toward the inside of the lithium composite oxide of the cathode active material}.
As noted above, Cho teaches a coating layer for lithium composite metal active material particles that includes an oxide having a coating element and further teaches that the oxide can contain mixtures of more than one element ([26];[29];[45]). Sodium, aluminum and boron, amongst other metals and elements, are taught as options for the coating element in Cho ([45]). Cho further teaches the elements utilized in the coating having a concentration gradient that decreases from the surface to the center of the lithium-containing compound ([47]). Cho also teaches that a heat treatment is needed to coat the active material with an oxide-containing element. The heat treatment process in Cho is performed within a range of 100 to 700°C for 1 – 20 hours ([60]). Cho further teaches that, when the heat treatment is performed outside the disclosed temperature and time range, the coating element diffuses closer to the center of the lithium composite oxide particle which causes a reduction in capacity ([60]).
Gao, directed toward lithium-nickel based composite oxide and thus within the same field of endeavor, teaches a graded sodium-doped lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide cathode material ([0009]). The inclusion of a sodium ion concentration gradient that decreases from the surface of the cathode material to the interior of the active material is taught by Ga to improve the structural stability of the material while maintaining high capacity ([0018]).
Therefore, since modified Baek is also directed to Li-nickel based oxide that includes Al and since Cho suggests, from a finite selection of coating elements, that sodium can also be used to coat cathode active materials (Cho: [45]), it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to inventio to further include sodium in the coating of modified Beak and further diffuse the sodium of the coating into the lithium composite oxide particle to obtain a concentration gradient of sodium where the sodium concentration decreases from an outer surface {i.e. coating} to an interior of the particle, as taught by Gao, with a reasonable expectation of success in improving the structural stability of modified Baek’s active material while maintaining the desired high capacity of the material.
One with ordinary skill in the art would recognize that sodium diffused from the coating to form a gradient such that the concentration decreases from the surface to the center of the particle and further would necessarily provide a distribution of sodium to a depth overlapping/encompassing the claimed range of 35 nm to 80 nm from a surface of the cathode active material {i.e. from the coating of the cathode active material toward the inside of the lithium composite oxide of the cathode active material}.
Furthermore since Cho teaches that it is undesirable to allow coating elements such as Na to diffuse too close to the center {i.e. causes a reduction in active material capacity} (Cho: [45][60]) and Baek suggests particle sizes between greater than 0.1 and less than 100 µm (Refer to Fig. 2), selection of a coating depth within the claimed range would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize/maximize the capacity of the active material {i.e. ensure that Na is distributed to a depth that does not reduce capacity} while ensuring the effects of the gradient {ensure the gradient is distributed over a depth capable of the providing the desired effects of increased structural stability}, with a reasonable expectation of success and without undue experimentation [MPEP 2144.05(II)].
In addition, since modified Baek includes the sodium coating material within the claimed depth, one with ordinary skill in the art would expect, when measured through an X-ray photoelectron spectrometer surface analysis, modified Baek to provide an atomic% of sodium that is 0% in a depth of over 80 nm from the surface of the cathode active material {i.e. from the coating of the cathode active material toward the inside of the lithium composite oxide of the cathode active material}.
Regarding Claim 9, modified Baek discloses all limitation as set forth above. Baek further discloses wherein the coating at least partially covers the surface of the lithium composite oxide ([0040]).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Baek discloses all limitation as set forth above. Bake further discloses wherein the lithium composite oxide includes nickel (Formula 1; [0026]) and a mole fraction of nickel in the composite oxide Is 0.6 or more along elements other than lithium and oxygen (Formula 2; [0029]).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Baek discloses all limitation as set forth above. Baek suggests particle sizes between greater than 0.1 and less than 100 µm (Refer to Fig. 2), but does particularly teach an average particle diameter of the active material particles. Therefore, modified Baek does not explicitly disclose wherein the lithium composite oxide has an average particle diameter (D50) from 3 µm to 25 µm.
The lithium composite active material particles of Baek are taught to be secondary particles {i.e. formed by agglomeration of primary particles} ([0040]).
Imahashi further teaches, with respect to Li-Ni composite active material particles controlling the average secondary particle diameter (D50) to be 1.0 µm – 30 µm ([0055]). Particle diameters less than 1.0 µm are taught by Imahashi to cause a deterioration in packing density and thus increased reactivity with electrolyte solution while particle sizes greater than 30 µm are difficult to industrially produce ([0055]). Imahashi further teaches a preference for selecting particle diameter of 3.0 – 28.0 µm ([0055]).
Since the lithium composite active material particles of Baek are taught to be secondary particles, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control the average diameter of the active material of modified Baek to be within the range taught by Imahashi, which overlaps the claimed range, with a reasonable expectation of success obtaining an active material that is easier to produce and further that allows for sufficient packing density.
Selection of an average particle diameter within the overlapping portion of the claimed range and the taught range would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in order to optimize the packing density of the active material in view of the processability of the active material, with a reasonable expectation of success and without undue experimentation [MPEP 2144.05(II)].
Regarding Claim 21, modified Baek discloses all limitation as set forth above. Baek further discloses a lithium secondary battery ([0066]), comprising: a cathode (positive electrode: [0066]) comprising the cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery (Refer to rejection of claim 1 above and [0056 – 0057];[0066]) and an anode facing the cathode (negative electrode; [0066]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek (US PG Pub. 2021/0151754 A1), Choi (KR20160045029A), Cho (KR20030033912A), Imahashi (US PG Pub. 20140087262 A1) and Gao (CN108630923A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ishii et al. (US PG Pub. 2014/0162132 A1, cited in Office action mailed 11/13/2025), hereinafter Ishii.
Regarding Claim 10, modified Baek discloses all limitation as set forth above. Baek teaches the coat coating being formed on surfaces of particles of the lithium composite transition metal oxide ([0034]).
Modified Baek does not explicitly disclose wherein the coating is discontinuously formed on the surface of the lithium composite oxide.
Ishii teaches a positive electrode active material with inorganic oxide coating layers, and further teaches a configuration of the coating layer where the layer is discontinuous on the surface of the active material particle (Fig. 1; [0031 – 0032]). Ishii teaches that a discontinuous coating allows for lithium ion transfer between the positive electrode active material particle and the electrolyte via the exposed portions, which suppresses decreases in initial battery capacity caused by resistance elevation ([0074];[0076];[0229]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to discontinuously form the coating of modified Baek , as taught by Ishii, with a reasonable expectation of success in obtaining a cathode active material that allows for greater lithium ion transfer and suppression of decreases in initial battery capacity.
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 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 ARYANA Y ORTIZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5986. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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 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 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.
/A.Y.O./
Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/Haroon S. Sheikh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
Prosecution Insights