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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 10/14/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. Specifically, no English translation or concise explanation of “Office Action for Chinese Patent Application No. 202111078223.6 issued by the Chinese Patent Office on July 26, 2025” is included in the application. Accordingly, although the reference has been placed in the application file, the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 11 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a concentration gradient region formed between the core region and the shell region having constant concentrations of Ni and Co” (lines 13-14; emphasis added). Here, it is unclear whether the recitation of “having constant concentrations of Ni and Co” is intended to refer to the concentration gradient region, the core region, and/or the shell region. Although the phrasing appears to indicate that the concentration gradient region has constant concentrations of Ni and Co, the concentration gradient region is understood to have changing concentrations of Ni and Co (see Claim 1: Pg. 2, lines 1-4). The core region and the shell region, however, are both previously recited as “having constant concentrations of Ni, Co, and Mn” (see line 9 and line 12; emphasis added). Therefore, since the referenced region is only recited as having constant concentrations of Ni and Co, it appears to indicate a different region than the previously recited core region and shell region. Therefore, it is unclear which region is referenced by the recitation of “having constant concentrations of Ni and Co”.
The claim further recites, “wherein a concentration of Ni decreases in the direction from the center to the surface according to a slope of Ni concentration gradient” and “wherein a concentration of Co increases in the direction from the center to the surface according to a slope of Co concentration gradient” (emphasis added). The Examiner notes that there does not appear to be appropriate antecedent basis for the terms “Ni concentration gradient” and “Co concentration gradient”. Indeed, although “a concentration gradient region” is recited, there is no previous indication that the concentrations of Ni or Co change within this gradient. Accordingly, it is unclear which gradients are referenced.
In light of the later recitations of Ni/Co concentration gradients, it could be interpreted that the recitation of “having constant concentrations of Ni and Co” refers to the concentration gradients of Ni and Co within the concentration gradient region, and should read “having constant concentration gradients of Ni and Co”. Such an interpretation would provide appropriate antecedent basis for the later recitations of Ni/Co concentration gradients.
For the reasons listed above, Claim 1 and dependent Claims 11 and 13-15 are rejected as being indefinite. For the sake of compact prosecution, the last interpretation will be applied to the claim, as supported by the instant specification [0040, 0042-0043, 0083]. Accordingly, it will be interpreted that lines 13-14 should read “a concentration gradient region formed between the core region and the shell region having constant concentration gradients of Ni and Co” (emphasis added).
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, 11 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (WO-2019103363-A1; previously cited; see English equivalent US-20200259173-A1 for citations) in view of Noh et al. (WO-2020036396-A1; previously cited; see English equivalent US-20210359293-A1 for citations) and in further view of Han (US-20180175388-A1; previously cited).
Regarding Claims 1 and 11, Kim discloses a cathode active material (positive electrode active material; [0008-0009]) for a lithium secondary battery [0002, 0068] comprising
a lithium metal oxide particle (lithium composite transition metal oxide; [0019]) containing nickel (Ni) and cobalt (Co) [0009, 0019].
Kim discloses that the lithium metal oxide particle comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of manganese (Mn) and aluminum (Al) [0009, 0019, 0021, 0025-0026]. In a specific embodiment (Example 1; [0094-0098]), Kim discloses that the lithium metal oxide particle comprises Ni, Co, and Mn, thereby rendering obvious with sufficient specificity a lithium metal oxide particle comprising Mn in addition to Ni and Co.
Kim discloses that the lithium metal oxide particle includes a core region (core part; [0016, 0019]) including a predetermined distance represented as a first distance from a center toward a surface [0025, 0066]. The core region is provided as a first constant concentration region [0020, 0094, 0096]. Since the lithium metal oxide particle comprises Ni, Co, and Mn, the first constant concentration region therefore has “constant concentrations of Ni, Co, and Mn”.
Kim discloses that a surface layer may be formed on the outer periphery of a shell part [0041]. The shell part has a concentration gradient [0022]. The surface layer corresponds the recited limitation of a “shell region”. Since the shell region (surface layer) is formed on the outer surface of a concentration gradient region (shell part), the shell region (surface layer) is understood to include “a predetermined distance represented as a second distance from the surface toward the center”.
Kim discloses that the shell region (surface layer) may include at least one or more selected from the group consisting of Ni, Co, Mn and Al, and that the concentration of the transition metal in the surface layer may be constant [0041]. Kim also discloses that it is important that no dramatic phase boundary region is formed within the lithium metal oxide particle in order to secure the stability of the crystal structure of the particle [0028].
Therefore, although Kim does not explicitly disclose that the shell region (surface layer) is a second constant concentration region having constant concentrations of Ni, Co, and Mn, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have formed the shell region (surface layer) to be a second constant concentration region having constant concentrations of Ni, Co, and Mn. Since Kim renders obvious that the lithium metal oxide particle contains Ni, Co, and Mn, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation that providing a shell region (surface layer) as a second constant concentration region having constant concentrations of Ni, Co, and Mn would result in a successful lithium metal oxide particle without dramatic phase boundary regions, thereby ensuring structural stability of the particle.
Kim discloses a concentration gradient region (corresponds to shell part; [0022, 0025]). Since the shell region (surface layer) is formed on the outer surface of the concentration gradient region (shell part) [0041], the concentration gradient region is thereby “formed between the core region and the shell region” as required by Claim 1, and the concentration gradient region thereby “extends from the surface of the core region to an inner surface of the shell region” as required by Claim 11 [0016, 0024-0026, 0041].
Although Kim does not explicitly teach that the concentration gradient region has constant concentration gradients (see 112(b) interpretation, above) of Ni and Co, Kim does disclose that the concentration of Ni can be gradually decreased in the concentration gradient region [0024-0026, 0056, 0096], and that the concentration of “at least one of Mn and Co is gradually increased” [0025-0026, 0057, 0096].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the concentration of Co to gradually increase in the concentration gradient region with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in a successful lithium metal oxide particle. Since Kim discloses that the concentration gradients of the metals are continuous [0026], selecting the concentration of Ni to gradually decrease while the concentration of Co gradually increases is interpreted as reading on “constant concentration gradients” (see 112(b) rejection, above) of Ni and Co.
Assuming, arguendo, that Kim does not disclose with sufficient specificity that the concentration of Co decreases in the concentration gradient region, such a configuration would still have been obvious in view of the teachings of Noh. Noh teaches a similar lithium metal oxide particle [0012-0014, 0022-0024]. Noh teaches that particle has a concentration gradient region (shell region) wherein the content of Ni decreases in the concentration gradient region while the concentration of Co increases in the same region [0023-0024, 0057]. Advantageously, by providing a high content of cobalt at the surface of the particle, the conductivity of the secondary battery improves, an increase in resistance of the lithium metal oxide particle can be suppressed, and capacity and output characteristics can be improved [0032, 0058, 0069]. Additionally, a high content of cobalt at the surface of the particle suppresses surface oxidation and decomposition of active metals such as lithium and nickel of the core part [0065-0066].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the concentration of Co to gradually increase in the concentration gradient region with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in a successful lithium metal oxide particle with improved conductivity and battery characteristics. Since Kim discloses that the concentration gradients of the metals are continuous [0026], selecting the concentration of Ni to gradually decrease while the concentration of Co gradually increases is interpreted as reading on “constant concentration gradients” (see 112(b) rejection, above) of Ni and Co.
Kim discloses an embodiment (Example 1; [0094-0098]) wherein a lithium metal oxide particle (lithium composite transition metal oxide) is prepared using Ni, Co, and Mn [0094]. A first solution is prepared with a ratio of Ni:Co:Mn of 95:4:1, and a second solution is prepared with a ratio of Ni:Co:Mn of 40:30:30 [0094]. As evidenced by Table 1 [0105], the first solution represents the concentration of transition metals in the core region and at the start point of the concentration gradient region, and the second solution represents the concentration of transition metals at the end point of the concentration gradient region (see Table 1; [0105]). Accordingly, Kim discloses that the concentration of Co increases by 7.5 (i.e. from 4 to 30 mol%) from the start of the concentration gradient region to the end of the concentration gradient region.
Since Kim renders obvious that the shell region (surface layer) is a second constant concentration region which is formed on the outer periphery (i.e. end point) of the concentration gradient region (shell part) [0041], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided the shell region (surface layer) to have the same concentration of transition metal elements as the end point of the concentration gradient region (shell part) with a reasonable expectation that such a concentration of transition metals would result in a successful lithium metal oxide particle without any dramatic phase boundary regions. Therefore, Kim renders obvious that a ratio of the concentration of Co at the surface (i.e. the outer surface of the shell region) relative to a concentration represented as an atomic percent of Co at the center is 7.5.
Kim discloses that including a high concentration of Ni in the core region (core part) ensures high capacity of the lithium metal oxide particle [0017]. As discussed above, Kim discloses that the concentration of Co can be increased by a factor of 7.5 from 4 mol% in the center of the particle to 30 mol% at the surface of the particle (see Table 1; [0094, 0105]). Kim further discloses that the inclusion of Co results in “significant improvement of a capacity characteristic” [0037]. In order to stabilize the crystal structure, enhance the structural stability, and increase the thermal stability of the positive electrode active material, Kim also discloses that it is important to gradually change the concentration of transition metals in the concentration gradient region (shell part) such that no dramatic phase boundary regions occur [0027-0028].
Kim does not teach the concentration of Co throughout the entire lithium metal oxide particle, and therefore Kim does not teach that “a ratio of a concentration represented as an atomic percent of Co at the surface relative to an average concentration represented as an atomic percent of Co throughout the entire region of the lithium metal oxide particle is 7.5 or more”.
Noh teaches a similar lithium metal oxide particle [0012-0014, 0022-0024]. Noh teaches that the content of Ni in the lithium metal oxide particle is associated with capacity, and a higher content of Ni results in a higher capacity and output of the lithium secondary battery [0053]. However, an excessively high content of Ni is disadvantageous for the mechanical and electrical stability of the lithium secondary battery, thereby reducing the life-span of the lithium secondary battery [0054].
Noh further teaches that a lithium metal oxide particle with a surface coating layer containing a relatively high concentration of cobalt is advantageous in that it suppresses an increase in resistance of the metal oxide, improves capacity and output characteristics, enhances chemical stability, and increases conductivity of the lithium metal oxide particle [0032, 0069]. Furthermore, a high concentration of Co at the surface suppresses surface oxidation and decomposition of active materials such as lithium and nickel [0065-0066].
Therefore, in seeking to balance the content of Ni and its resulting impact on capacity with the content of Co and its resulting impact on enhancing stability and output characteristics of the lithium metal oxide particle, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to have optimized the content of Ni and Co throughout the lithium metal oxide particle, including selecting a ratio of a concentration represented as an atomic percent of Co at the surface relative to an average concentration represented as an atomic percent of Co throughout an entire region of the lithium metal oxide particle to be 7.5 or more, with a reasonable expectation that such a content of Co would result in a successful lithium metal oxide particle (MPEP 2144.05, II).
As noted above, Kim discloses that the concentration of Ni decreases in the concentration gradient region in the direction from the center to the surface [0024, 0056, 0094]. Accordingly, the concentration of Ni is interpreted as decreasing “according to a slope of Ni concentration gradient”.
Kim also renders obvious that the concentration of Co increases in the concentration gradient region in the direction from the center to the surface (see above). Accordingly, the concentration of Co is interpreted as increasing “according to a slope of Co concentration gradient”.
Kim discloses that the core region can be formed to have a diameter ratio of 0.5 to 0.85 with respect to the total particle diameter of the positive electrode active material precursor [0018, 0030, 0054, 0065-0066]. This corresponds to a core region which occupies 50% or more (i.e. 50% to 85%) of a radius of the lithium meal oxide particle from the center (MPEP 2144.05, I). As previously discussed, concentrations of metal elements are constant in the core region [0020, 0094, 0096].
Furthermore, Kim discloses that a ratio of thickness of the concentration gradient region (shell part) to the radius of a particle of the positive electrode active material is 0.15 to 0.5 [0030, 0066]. If the concentration gradient region (shell part) has a ratio less than 0.15, the structural stability and chemical stability of the particle is decreased [0030]. On the other hand, if the ratio is more than 0.5, it is difficult to ensure high capacity [0030]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have optimized the ratio of the thickness of the concentration gradient region in relation to the radius of the lithium metal oxide particle, including selecting a concentration gradient region thickness which results in a core region which occupies 50% or more of a radius of the lithium metal oxide particle from the center (MPEP 2144.05, II). One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in a successful balance between ensuring structural and chemical stability while maximizing capacity. As previously discussed, concentrations of metal elements are constant in the core region [0020, 0094, 0096].
Although Kim does not explicitly teach the second distance of the shell region (surface layer), and therefore does not explicitly teach “wherein the second distance of the shell region is less than the first distance of the core region”, since Kim renders obvious a core region which comprises 50% or more of the radius of the lithium metal oxide particle, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the second distance of the shell region (surface layer) to be less than the first distance of the core region (core part) (MPEP 2144.05, I). One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in a successful lithium metal oxide particle a sufficient thickness of core region to secure capacity, and a sufficient thickness of concentration gradient region to secure structural and chemical stability.
Modified Kim does not teach the radius of the shell region (surface layer), and therefore does not teach that the second distance is in a range from about 30 nm to about 60 nm.
Han teaches a cathode active material comprising a lithium metal oxide particle including Ni, Mn, and Co [0011-0012, 0014, 0018-0020]. Han teaches that the lithium metal oxide particle includes a central portion with a constant concentration of elements, a concentration gradient layer, and a surface portion with a constant concentration of elements [0019-0020]. Han teaches that the surface portion (corresponds to shell region) is the outermost surface of the active material particle, and may include a predetermined thickness from the outermost surface [0054]. For example, the surface portion may include a region “within a thickness of about 0.1 µm” (i.e. 100 nm) from the outermost surface of the active material particle [0054].
Since Han teaches that a surface portion within a thickness of about 100 nm from the outermost surface of the active material particle functions as a successful shell region, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to have provided the shell region of modified Kim as a region with a thickness within about 100 nm of the outermost surface of the lithium metal oxide particle, with a reasonable expectation that such a shell region thickness would result in a successful lithium metal oxide particle.
The thickness range of within about 100 nm rendered obvious by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of “about 30 nm to about 60 nm”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected any portion of the range rendered obvious by the prior art, including selecting the shell region to have a thickness of about 30 nm to about 60 nm, with a reasonable expectation that such a thickness would result in a successful lithium metal oxide particle (MPEP 2144.05, I). A thickness of about 30 nm to about 60 nm corresponds to a “second distance” in a range of “about 30 nm to about 60 nm”.
As previously noted, Kim discloses that the concentration of at least one of Mn and Co is gradually increased in the concentration gradient region (shell part) [0025, 0057]. Accordingly, the Examiner notes that Kim is open to a configuration wherein the concentration of Mn does not increase while the concentration of Co increases.
Therefore, although Kim does not explicitly teach an embodiment wherein “Mn does not form a concentration gradient”, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the concentration of Mn to remain constant in the concentration gradient region with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in a successful lithium metal oxide particle (see MPEP 2123, II).
Assuming, arguendo, that Kim does not teach with sufficient specificity that the concentration of Mn can be held constant throughout the lithium metal oxide particle, such a configuration would still have been obvious over the teachings of Noh. Noh teaches a similar lithium metal oxide particle [0012-0014, 0022-0024]. Noh teaches that Mn can be included in a constant content and concentration throughout the lithium metal oxide particle [0025, 0073]. Advantageously, Noh teaches that Mn compensates for chemical and mechanical instabilities caused by nickel, and increases the life-span of a lithium secondary battery [0054, 0072]. By including a constant concentration of Mn throughout the particle, uniform penetration stability and high temperature stability throughout the particle is secured [0073].
Therefore, in seeking to increase stability of the lithium metal oxide particle and life-span of a resulting lithium secondary battery, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to have provided Mn with a constant concentration throughout the lithium metal oxide particle with a reasonable expectation that such a content of Mn would result in a successful lithium metal oxide particle. By including a constant concentration of Mn in the lithium metal oxide particle, modified Kim renders obvious that “Mn does not form a concentration gradient from the center of the lithium metal oxide particle to the surface of the lithium metal oxide particle”.
Kim does not teach that diameter of the lithium metal oxide particle, and therefore Kim does not teach that the lithium metal oxide particle has a diameter of 3 µm to 17 µm.
Han teaches a cathode active material particle including a lithium metal oxide particle [0011-0012, 0014, 0018-0020, 0049] which has an average diameter (D50) of about 3 µm to about 15 µm [0080]. Han teaches that a particle with a D50 of less than 3 µm may be too small to realize a desired composition, and activity and stability may not be realized and controlled [0099]. However, if a particle has a D50 larger than about 15 µm, an excessive amount of heat may be required for particle formation [0099].
Furthermore, Noh also teaches a similar average diameter (D50) for a lithium metal oxide particle (i.e. 3 µm to 25 µm) [0048], thereby evidencing that such a particle diameter is well-known within the art of lithium metal oxide particles with concentration gradients.
Therefore, is seeking to obtain a particle composition with the desired activity and stability while ensuring particle formation efficiency, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to have optimized the D50 of the lithium metal oxide particle of modified Kim, including selecting the lithium metal oxide particle to have a D50 of 3 µm to 15 µm, which is within the claimed range of 3 µm to 17 µm (MPEP 2144.05, II).
Kim discloses that the concentration gradient region (shell part) is formed between the core region and the shell region (surface layer) [0016, 0041]. Therefore, the concentration gradient region (shell part) is understood to have “a predetermined distance represented as a third distance from the core region to the shell region”.
Although Kim does not explicitly teach a radius of the third distance, and therefore does not explicitly teach that the third distance is “in a range from about 40 nm to about 300 nm”, Kim does disclose that a ratio of thickness of the concentration gradient region (shell part) to the radius of a particle of the positive electrode active material is 0.15 to 0.5 [0030, 0066]. If the concentration gradient region (shell part) has a ratio less than 0.15, the structural stability and chemical stability of the particle is decreased [0030]. On the other hand, if the ratio is more than 0.5, it is difficult to ensure high capacity [0030].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have optimized the ratio of the thickness of the concentration gradient region in relation to the radius of the lithium metal oxide particle, including selecting a radius of the lithium metal oxide particle and a thickness of the concentration gradient region such that the third distance is in a range from about 40 nm to about 300 nm (MPEP 2144.05, II). One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in a successful balance between ensuring structural and chemical stability while maximizing capacity.
Regarding Claims 13-14, modified Kim renders obvious all of the limitation as set forth above. Kim discloses that the core and shell parts (i.e. core and concentration gradient regions) may contain active material represented by the chemical Formula 1 [0032-0034]:
LipNi1-(x1+y1+z1)Cox1May1Mbz1Mcq1O2
The ranges disclosed for each element [0033] overlap or fall within the claimed ranges as detailed below:
Regarding the content of Li:
Kim discloses Lip wherein 0.9≤p≤1.5, which overlaps the claimed Lix range of 0<x≤1.2.
Regarding the content of Ni:
Kim discloses Ni1-(x1+y1+z1) wherein 0<x1+y1+z1≤0.4 (i.e. Ni can range from 0.6 to 0.999…), which falls within the claimed Nia range of 0<a<1 as required by Claim 13 and further falls substantially within the claimed range of 0.6≤a≤0.99 as required by Claim 14.
Regarding the content of Co:
Kim discloses Cox1 wherein 0<x1≤0.4, which falls within the claimed Cob range of 0<b<1.
Regarding the content of Mn:
Kim discloses May1 wherein Ma can be selected from a group that includes Mn [0033] (see also rejection of Claim 1 which renders obvious Ma as Mn), and wherein 0<y1≤0.4, which falls within the claimed Mnc range of 0<c<1.
Regarding the content of O:
Kim discloses O2, which falls within the claimed Oy range of 2≤y≤2.02.
Kim further discloses that Mb and Mc are optional components (i.e. the concentration of each can be 0; [0033]).
As detailed above, the content of Li overlaps the claimed Li range, while the contents of Ni, Co, Mn, and O all fall within the claimed ranges. Therefore, although Kim does not explicitly teach Chemical Formula 1 as recited in the instant application, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to have selected the overlapping potion of the Li range disclosed in the prior art (MPEP 2144.05, I), as well as selecting the content of Mb and Mc to be 0 with a reasonable expectation that such contents of elements would result in a successful lithium metal oxide particle. Therefore, Formula 1 of the prior art as rendered obvious above reads on Chemical Formula 1 of the instant application.
Regarding Claim 15, modified Kim renders obvious the cathode active material of Claim 1. Kim further discloses a lithium secondary battery [0068, 0078], comprising: a cathode including the cathode active material of claim 1 [0068-0069, 0074]; and an anode facing the cathode [0078].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding Applicant’s argument that the instant application provides increased life-span, enhanced capacity retention at high temperature, and ignition stability (Remarks, Pg. 10), the Examiner notes that the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious.
Applicant has argued that the cited references do not disclose or suggest the location where Mn concentration is constant (Remarks, Pg. 11). Although Applicant acknowledges that Kim discloses that the concentration of at least one of Mn and Co gradually increases, Applicant submits that Kim essentially teaches that Mn concentration increases toward the surface to enhance thermal stability, and that Co concentration is higher at the surface to prevent capacity reduction (Remarks, Pg. 11). Applicant notes that Examples of Kim show that the concentration of both Co and Mn increase, and Applicant submits that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would make a cathode active material where both Co and Mn concentrations are higher at the surface (Remark, Pg. 11).
The Examiner has carefully considered this argument, but respectfully disagrees. The Examiner emphasizes that, as noted by the Applicant, Kim discloses that at least one of Mn and Co is gradually increased in the concentration gradient region [Kim: 0025]. Therefore, although Kim discloses specific embodiments wherein the concentrations of both Mn and Co increase, such preferred embodiments do not teach away from the broad disclosure of Kim (see MPEP 2123, I-II). Since Kim broadly discloses that only one of Mn and Co is necessarily increased in the concentration gradient region, the Examiner maintains that POSITA would have found it obvious to have increased the concentration of Co while maintaining the concentration of Mn.
Furthermore, the Examiner notes that the rejections of record (see rejection of Claim 1, above) note that Noh provides motivation to include a constant concentration of Mn throughout the lithium metal oxide particle. Specifically, Noh teaches that Mn compensates for chemical and mechanical instabilities caused by Ni, and increased the life-span of a lithium secondary battery [Noh: 0054, 0072]. By including a constant concentration of Mn throughout the particle, uniform penetration stability and high temperature stability through the particle is secured [Noh: 0073]. Therefore, in light of the prior art, POSITA would have had motivation and a reasonable expectation of success in selecting the concentration of Co to increase in the concentration gradient region while selecting the concentration of Mn to remain constant throughout the lithium metal oxide particle.
Applicant has argued that Kim merely discloses the inclusion of at least one transition metal selected from Ni, Co, Mn, and Al in the surface portion of the cathode active material, and does not teach the formation of the second constant concentration region (Remarks, Pgs. 11-12).
The Examiner has carefully considered this argument, but respectfully does not find it persuasive. The Examiner notes that Kim discloses that the surface layer (corresponds to shell region) may include “at least one or more selected from the group consisting of Ni, Co, Mn and Al”, and that the concentration of transition metal in the surface layer (shell region) “may be constant” [Kim: 0041]. Kim also discloses the importance of preventing dramatic phase boundary regions from occurring within the particle in order to secure crystal structure stability [Kim: 0028]. Therefore, as noted in the rejections of record (see rejection of Claim 1, above), POSITA would have found it obvious to have formed the surface layer (shell region) as a second constant concentration region (MPEP 2123, I-II).
Applicant has argued that the Examples of Kim do not disclose the second constant concentration region (Remarks, Pg. 12). Applicant has submitted that a structure having the configuration of core region / concentration gradient region / shell region cannot be derived from Kim and the other cited references (Remarks, Pg. 12).
The Examiner has carefully considered this argument, but respectfully disagrees. The Examiner notes that patents are relevant for all they contain (MPEP 2123, I) and disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments (MPEP 2123, II). In other words, even though Kim does not disclose specific examples wherein the surface layer (corresponds to shell region) is included as a constant concentration gradient region, such a configuration is still within the scope of the prior art disclosure (as discussed, above), and POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in providing a surface layer (shell region) on the outer periphery of the shell part (corresponds to concentration gradient region) [Kim: 0041]. Accordingly, the Examiner submits that configuration of core region / concentration gradient region / shell region is within the scope of the disclosure of Kim.
Applicant has argued that Han does not disclose a constant concentration of Mn (Remarks, Pg. 12). Applicant submits that modifying Han’s first active material to have a uniform concentration of Mn would destroy Han’s intended purpose (Remarks, Pgs. 12-13).
In response, the Examiner notes that the rejections of record do not propose modifying the concentration of metal elements of Han, nor do they rely on Han to teach the concentration of Mn or modify the concentration of Mn within the particle of Kim. Instead, the rejections rely on Han to teach a reasonable thickness of the surface layer (shell region) and a reasonable particle diameter (see rejection of Claim 1, above). Accordingly, arguments directed towards modifications of Han are moot.
Applicant has argued that POSITA would not apply the surface region thickness and average particle diameter of Han to Kim’s cathode active material since the teachings of the references are completely different (Remarks, Pg. 13). Applicant notes that Han does not have a Co concentration gradient region, while Kim’s particle includes a Co concentration gradient region.
The Examiner has carefully considered this argument, but respectfully does not find it persuasive. Kim and Han are both directed toward lithium metal oxide particles comprising a core region with a constant concentration, a concentration gradient region, and an outer shell region wherein the concentration of transition metals can be constant (see rejection of Claim 1, above, and [Kim: 0020-0022, 0025-0026, 0041]; [Han: 0018-0020]). Both Kim and Han teach that the lithium metal oxide particles can comprise Ni, Co, and Mn (see [Kim: 0021, 0094]; [Han: 0018]). Although Kim does not disclose the thickness of the shell region (surface layer) or the diameter of the lithium metal oxide particle, modified Kim is understood to render obvious a particle which necessarily has a thickness of the shell region (surface layer) and a particle diameter. Therefore, although the lithium metal oxide particle taught by Han is not identical to the lithium metal oxide particle disclosed by Kim, POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation that selecting the shell region (surface layer) thickness and particle diameter to be within the range taught by Han would result in a successful lithium metal oxide particle, absent persuasive evidence to the contrary. The Examiner further notes that Noh teaches a similar lithium metal oxide particle diameter as that taught by Han ([Noh: 0048]; [Han: 0080]), thereby evidencing that such a particle diameter is well-known in the art of lithium metal oxide particles comprising concentration gradient regions. The Examiner notes that there is currently nothing on record to indicate that selecting the lithium metal oxide particle of modified Kim to have a shell region (surface layer) thickness or particle diameter as taught by Han would not result in a successful lithium metal oxide particle.
Applicant has argued that POSITA would not combine the teachings of Noh and Kim due to their contradictory disclosures (Remarks, Pg. 13). Applicant notes that Noh discloses a Ni content difference of less than 30 mol% between the core part and the shell part, while Kim discloses this difference as 30 mol% or more (Remarks, Pgs. 13-14). Applicant has noted that Kim contains comparative examples wherein the Ni concentration difference is less than 30 mol% (Remarks, Pg. 14).
The Examiner has carefully considered this argument, but respectfully does not find it persuasive. Both Kim and Noh are drawn to lithium metal oxide particles with a core containing a high concentration of Ni and a concentration gradient region wherein the concentration of Ni is decreased toward the surface ([Kim: 0020-0022, 0024-0026, 0056]; [Noh: 0044, 0053-0054, 0056-0057]). Both of the prior arts contemplate increasing the concentration of Co in the concentration gradient region ([Kim: 0025, 0057]; [Noh: 0057-0058]), and are open to / teach that the concentration of Mn can remain constant (Kim: [0025, 0057]; [Noh: 0054, 0072-0073]). Therefore, although the prior art references do not teach identical changes to the concentration of Ni, POSITA would still find it obvious to apply the similar teachings of Noh to Kim. Additionally, the Examiner notes that Noh is not relied upon to teach specific concentrations of Ni, and instead is relied upon to teach the function of Ni within the lithium metal oxide particle (see rejection of Claim 1, above). Such a teaching is applicable to the prior art Kim.
Applicant has argued that the main purpose of Noh is to maintain a Co content in the depth region (10 nm to 100 nm from a surface of the lithium metal oxide particle) in a range of 1.4 to 6 times a Co content of the core part (Remarks, Pgs. 14-15). Applicant has submitted that the Examiner “merely cherry-picks elective disclosures of individual references to arrive at the present invention without considering the references as a whole” (Remarks, Pg. 16). Applicant has alleged that the Examiner has “conveniently ignored portions of the cited references that are contradictory and teaches away from the combination of their combination”, and notes that references must be read in their entirety (Remarks, Pg. 16).
The Examiner has carefully considered this argument, but respectfully disagrees. As noted by the Applicant (Remarks, Pg. 14), Noh is not relied upon to teach specific concentrations of Co. Instead, Noh provides motivation to optimize the concentration of Co within the lithium metal oxide particle of Kim (see rejection of Claim 1, above). The teachings of Noh, regarding the function of Co within a lithium metal oxide particle comprising Ni [Noh: 0065-0069], are understood to be relevant to the disclosure of Kim, which also teaches a lithium metal oxide particle comprising Co and Ni (see rejection of Claim 1, above). The Examiner emphasizes that the rejections of record do not propose to incorporate specific concentration of Co from Noh into Kim, and notes that Kim discloses increasing the concentration of Co from 4 mol% in the core region to 30 mol% at the shell region (i.e. by a ratio of 7.5) [Kim: 0094, 0096], thereby evidencing that the Co concentration in the particle of Kim is able to be successfully increased beyond the Co concentrations taught by Noh. The Examiner submits that the prior art references have been considered in their entirety, and can be reasonably combined by POSITA to arrive at the claimed invention, as laid out in the rejections of record, above.
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 DREW C NEWMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9873. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 10:00 AM - 6:00 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.
/D.C.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 2/4/2026