DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the December 30th, 2025 arguments and remarks (“Remarks”). The
text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior
Office 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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendments received on December 30th, 2025:
Claims 11-22 are pending in the current application. Claims 11 and 21 are amended. Claim 22 is newly added. Claims 14-19 were previously withdrawn. Claims 1-10 were previously cancelled.
Claim 11 is amended to specify an amount of residual lithium in the nickel based active material of less than 900 ppm measured by titration with an HCL solution.
Claim 21 is amended to correct the ratio of an area of a peak corresponding to the (003) face to an area of a peak corresponding to the (104) face (area (003/104)) to a range of about 1.1678 to about 1.2039. Therefore, the objection of Claim 21 is withdrawn.
Claim 22 is newly added to specify that the X-ray diffraction analysis of the nickel-based active material has a FWHM (003) in a range of 0.13° to 0.14°.
Applicant’s amendment finds support in the disclosure including the originally filed claims, figures, and specification. No new matter has been added.
The new grounds of rejection are necessitated by amendment.
Status of Claims
Claims 11-13 and 20-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as described below:
Claims 11-12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (E.P. Pat. No. 2824735 A2) and further in view of Yoshikawa (J.P. Pat. No. 2019149371 A). The rejections are withdrawn in view of the amendment to Claim 11.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 is being unpatentable over Lee et al. (E.P. Pat. No. 2824735 A2) in view of Yoshikawa (J.P. Pat. No. 2019149371 A), and further in view of Guo et al. (C.N. Pat. No. 110233250 A). The rejections are withdrawn in view of the amendment to Claim 11.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 is being unpatentable over Lee et al. (E.P. Pat. No. 2824735 A2) in view of Yoshikawa (J.P. Pat. No. 2019149371 A) as applied to Claim 11 above, and further in view of Nagano (U.S. Pat. No. 20160164101 A1). The rejections are withdrawn in view of the amendment to Claim 11.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed December 30th, 2025 have been fully considered as further described below:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 11 and 22 are based on the claims as amended and have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The new grounds of rejection and all changes are necessitated by amendment.
Cited Prior Art
Previously Cited Wang et al. (C.N. Pat. No. 106784780 A) (“Wang et al.”)
Previously Cited Lee et al. (E.P. Pat. No. 2824735 A2) (“Lee et al.”)
Previously Cited Yoshikawa (J.P. Pat. No. 2019149371 A) (“Yoshikawa”)
Previously Cited Nagano (U.S. Pat. No. 20160164101 A1) (“Nagano”)
Previously Cited Guo et al. (C.N. Pat. No. 110233250 A) (“Guo et al.”)
Jiyoon et al. (K.R. Pat. No. 20190065963 A) (“Jiyoon et al.”)
Chang et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20170358796 A1) (“Chang et al.”)
Takei et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20160164094 A1) (“Takei et al.”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 11-12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (E.P. Pat. No. 2824735 A2) in view of Yoshikawa (J.P. Pat. No. 2019149371 A), and further in view of Jiyoon et al. (K.R. Pat. No. 20190065963 A) as further evidenced by Chang et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20170358796 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Lee et al. teaches a nickel-based active material for a lithium secondary battery (para. 18). The nickel based active material can be a compound represented by formula LixCoaNibMncO2+α in which 0.9<x<1.1, 0<a<0.5, 0.4<b<1, 0<c<0.5, -0.1≤α1≤0.1 equivalent to the claimed formula (substituting the subscripts as claimed by the corresponding parameters of the prior art) in which 0.9<a<1.1, 0<x<0.5, 0.4<(1-x-y-z)<1, 0<y<0.5, -0.1≤α1≤0.1 and z is 0 (para. 47). Therefore, the ranges of subscripts a, (1-x-y-z), x, y, z and α1, overlap or fall within the claimed range of 0.95≤a≤1.1, 0<x≤0.4, 0.6≤(1-x-y-z)<1, 0≤y<0.4, 0≤α1≤0.1, and 0≤z<0.4. Further the amount of nickel among all other metals other than lithium can be 0.4 to 1 or 40 to 100 mol% (para. 47), overlapping the claimed range of 60 mol% or more. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I). Lee et al. teaches an X-ray diffraction analysis of a nickel-based metal oxide (para. 33).
Lee et al. does not teach a ratio FWHM (003)/FWHM (104) in a range of about 0.55 to about 0.83 observed from an X-ray diffraction analysis of the nickel based active material.
Yoshikawa teaches a lithium transition metal composition oxide with a FWHM (003)/FWHM (104) ratio of 0.72 or more (para. 11), overlapping the claimed range of about 0.55 to about 0.83.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the nickel-based metal oxide of Lee et al. to include a FWHM (003)/FWHM (104) ratio of 0.72 or more as taught by Yoshikawa, overlapping the claimed range of about 0.55 to about 0.83 (see MPEP § 2144.05, I). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would find the teachings of Yoshikawa useful in providing a desirable FWHM (003)/FWHM (104) ratio of a lithium transition metal composite oxide in which cracking of the active material during the charge/discharge cycle is significantly suppressed and performance is improved (Yoshikawa, para. 11).
Lee et al. does not teach wherein an amount of residual lithium in the nickel-based active material is less than 900 ppm, measured by titration with an HCL solution.
Jiyoon et al. teaches a nickel based cathode active material (para. 45) having a residual lithium content of 970 ppm or less (para. 43). Jiyoon et al. teaches a lithium secondary battery in which minimizes the residual lithium content and is excellent in stability and electrochemical characteristics (para. 4). As further evident by Chang et al., the residual lithium content can be measured by titration with HCl (para. 87); further Chang et al. teaches that increased surface residual lithium may cause swelling and gasification, leading to severe reduced in high temperature stability (para. 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the nickel-based active material of Lee et al. to include an amount of residual lithium of 970 ppm or less as taught by Jiyoon et al, overlapping the claimed range of less than 900 ppm. "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)" (see MPEP 2144.05.I). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to provide a lithium secondary battery having reduced residual lithium and is excellent in stability and electrochemical characteristics as described above. Further the method of measuring the residual lithium content is not given patentable weight as it is directed to a product by process limitation and does not impart structural characteristics to the claimed product (see MPEP 2113). However, the residual lithium can be measured by titration with HCl as further evident by Chang; Chang also provides further motivation to reduce the residual lithium to suppress swelling and gasification as described above.
Regarding Claim 12, Lee et al. is modified by Yoshikawa and Jiyoon et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 11 above. Lee et al. teaches an X-ray diffraction analysis of a nickel-based metal oxide with a full width at half maximum (FWHM) of a (003) peak in a range from about 0.120° to 0.125°, within the claimed range of about 0.11° to about 0.14° (para. 33) (see MPEP § 2144.05, I).
Regarding Claim 20, Lee et al. is modified by Yoshikawa and Jiyoon et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 11 above. Lee et al. teaches a lithium secondary battery comprising the cathode made of the nickel-based oxide active material (para. 94-95); an anode; and a separator with good electrolytic solution retaining ability dispersed between the cathode and the anode (para. 105). Therefore, the electrolyte is dispersed between the cathode and the anode by the separator.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (E.P. Pat. No. 2824735 A2) in view of Yoshikawa (J.P. Pat. No. 2019149371 A) and Jiyoon et al. (K.R. Pat. No. 20190065963 A) as applied to Claim 11 above, and further in view of Guo et al. (C.N. Pat. No. 110233250 A)
Regarding Claim 13, Lee et al. is modified by Yoshikawa and Jiyoon et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 11 above. Lee et al. teaches one or a single secondary particle made of a nickel-based metal oxide including two or more agglomerates of primary particles with the primary particles having a size of 3 µm to 5 µm (para. 19), within the claimed range of 1 µm to 5 µm (see MPEP § 2144.05, I). The cathode active material made of the nickel-based metal oxide may have a crystal structure (para. 36).
Lee et al. does not describe the nickel-based active material as a single crystal.
Guo et al. teaches a nickel based active material comprising a single crystal structure of more than 2 µm providing a lithium-ion battery with improved energy density, uniform dispersion of each element, and long life (para. 17-18 of “Summary of the Invention”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the nickel-based active material of Lee et al. by Guo et al. to include a single crystal structure of more than 2 µm, overlapping the claimed range of 1 µm to 5 µm (see MPEP § 2144.05, I). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform the described modification to provide a lithium cell with improved energy density, uniformity, and long life as described above.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (E.P. Pat. No. 2824735 A2) in view of Yoshikawa (J.P. Pat. No. 2019149371 A) and Jiyoon et al. (K.R. Pat. No. 20190065963 A) as applied to Claim 11 above, and further in view of Nagano (U.S. Pat. No. 20160164101 A1).
Regarding Claim 21, Lee et al. is modified by Yoshikawa and Jiyoon et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 11 above.
Lee et al. does not teach the nickel-based active material having a ratio of an area of a peak corresponding to the (003) face to an area of a peak corresponding to the (104) face (area (003/104)) in a range of about 1.1678 to about 1.2039.
Nagano teaches an X-ray diffraction analysis of a nickel-based active material having a ratio of an area of peak corresponding to the (003) face to an area of a peak corresponding to the (104) face (diffraction peak integrated intensity ratio (003)/(104) in which the integrated intensity is equivalent to an area) is preferably 1.10 to 1.45 (para. 40), within and overlapping the claimed range of 1.1678 to 1.2039. Nagano teaches the integrated intensity ratio as described provides fewer defects in the crystal and suppresses a decrease in battery charge and discharge capacity or deterioration in durability (para. 40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the nickel-based active material of Lee et al. by Nagano to include an area of a peak corresponding the (003) face to an area of a peak corresponding to the (104) face (diffraction peak integrated intensity ratio (003)/(104) in which the integrated intensity is equivalent to an area) as preferably 1.10 to 1.45 (para. 40), within and overlapping the claimed range of 1.1678 to 1.2039 (see MPEP § 2144.05, I). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform the described modification to provide fewer defects in the crystal and suppress a decrease in battery charge and discharge capacity or deterioration in durability.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (E.P. Pat. No. 2824735 A2) in view of Yoshikawa (J.P. Pat. No. 2019149371 A) and Jiyoon et al. (K.R. Pat. No. 20190065963 A) as applied to Claim 11 above, and further in view of Takei et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20160164094 A1).
Regarding Claim 22, Lee et al. is modified by Yoshikawa and Jiyoon et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 11 above.
Lee et al. does not teach an X-ray diffraction analysis of the nickel-based active material having a FWHM (003) in a range of 0.13° to 0.14°.
Takei et al. teaches an X-ray diffraction analysis of a nickel-based active material having a FWHM (003) in a range of 0.13° to 0.15°; when the full width at half maximum FWHM(003) of a diffraction peak of a (003) phase is within these ranges, discharge capacity of a rechargeable lithium battery increases and cycle characteristics may be improved (para. 15, 48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the nickel based active material of Lee et al. by Takei et al. to include a FWHM (003) in a range of 0.13° to 0.15°, overlapping the claimed range of 0.13° to 0.14° (see MPEP § 2144.05, I). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to provide a lithium battery with increased discharge capacity and improved cycle characteristics as described 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 CHRISTINA RENEE DAULTON whose telephone number is (703)756-5413. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 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, ULA RUDDOCK can be reached at (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.
/C.R.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729