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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/29/2025 has been entered.
Claim Status
This Office action is in response to the amendment and remarks filed on 7/29/2025.
Claim 3 has been amended.
Claim 6 has been cancelled.
Claims 1-5, 7, and 9 are currently pending.
Of which claim 8 is not from an elected invention and is withdrawn from consideration.
Response to Amendment
In light of the amendments to the claims the rejection of claim 3 under 35 USC § 112(b) is withdrawn. The cancellation of claim 6 has rendered the rejection moot. A new rejection of claim 3 under 35 USC § 112(a) new matter is detailed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the top of page 6, lines 1-8, filed 7/29/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 7 under 35 USC § 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 7 under 35 USC § 112(b) has been withdrawn. The rejection of claim 7 under 35 USC § 103 still stands however.
Applicant's arguments filed 7/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
It should be noted that towards the bottom of page 6 of the remarks filed 7/29/2025 applicant asserts that claim 1 has been amended, claim 1 is submitted as previously presented in the amendment dated 7/29/2025, but was amended 6/26/2025.
Applicant argues at the top of page 7 that KAMIYAMA fails to describe regions with differing ratios of cobalt with respect to the region. These regions need to be understood as a whole when the particle of KAMIYAMA is coated with the cobalt oxide disclosed by CHO. Applicant is arguing that the diminishing levels of cobalt with respect to the depth of the particle in the instant application is defined as a region of the primary particle. The office’s position is that these regions are merely layers of the claimed particle and that when the coating disclosed by CHO is applied to the core particle disclosed by KAMIYAMA the combination is obvious over the claimed invention as currently written in instant claim 1.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The applicant asserts that the coating layer disclosed by CHO fails to describe nickel as a content in the coating. Even if the coating itself initially has no nickel CHO [0035] discloses that the elements of one layer or region may be present in another region. CHO [0041] further discloses “during charging, nickel (Ni) ions may migrate into a lithium layer to fill in lattice spaces” and [0054] “The coating layer may entirely or partially coat the surface of the lithium transition metal oxide. For example, the coating layer may be coated on about 90% or less of the surface of the lithium transition metal oxide. For example, the coating layer may be coated on about 80% or less, for example, about 70% or less, for example, 60% or less, for example, about 50% or less, for example, about 40% or less, for example, about 30% or less, for example, about 20% or less, and for example, about 10% or less of the surface of the lithium transition metal oxide.” It is also the position of the office that the migratory nature of the nickel ions during the charging and discharging cycles would create the conditions where even if allegedly, the nickel was not initially present in the coating layer (outer region) that eventually it will have migrated there meeting the limitation “a ratio of a number of moles of nickel to the total number of moles of metal elements other than lithium in the first region is 0.6 or greater and 0.98 or less” in the instant claim 1.
Lastly, and more germane is the fact that the instant application [0064] titled Cobalt Adhesion Step also does not add nickel to the outermost coating of cobalt.
In regards to the argument in the second paragraph of page 9 that formula 1 represents “the core”, CHO [0012] “a core including a lithium transition metal oxide, wherein the lithium transition metal oxide is represented by Formula 1”. The assertion that formula 1 represents the contents of the core exclusively is not the stance of the office. The applicant goes on to state “a person skilled in the art would not conceive” of using the layer of formula 1 disclosed by CHO in the core particle disclosed by KAMIYAMA and that the position of the office is “clearly hindsight” reasoning. It is not the position of the office that the lithium transition metal oxide represented by Formula 1 is used as the coating, but that the nickel is present in a gradient the same as the instant application. The samples prepared in CHO where the cobalt coating is applied such as in “Example 6, [0125] 20 g of the lithium transition metal oxide obtained in Example 5 was put into a Retsch ZM-200 mill, grinded, and then passed through a 25-um sieve to collect powder of a size. The collected lithium transition metal oxide and 0.244 g of a cobalt precursor (Co(OH).sub.2) were uniformly distributed with a planetary mixer Thinky ARE-310. The dispersed powder was calcined under an atmospheric condition at about 900° C. for about 5 hours, to thereby obtain a composite cathode active material having, on a surface thereof, a coating layer including a cobalt compound.” Is nearly identical to the deposit heat treatment [0067] step where the cobalt coated core without the addition of nickel is heated [0069] between 500-1100 degrees C for 3- 10 hours.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
CHO [0022] states that “according to the one or more embodiments, by including a core including a single-crystal, nickel-doped lithium transition metal oxide, and a coating layer on a surface of the core, wherein the coating layer includes a cobalt compound, the composite cathode active material may have improved structural stability and lifetime characteristics at a high voltage. A lithium secondary battery including the composite cathode active material may have improved charge/discharge characteristics and may inhibit gas generation.” Furthermore, CHO [0041] continues “by the inclusion of Li and Co as major elements, and Ni and the at least one element selected from the Group 4 to Group 13 elements as doping elements, the composite cathode active material having a layered structure may have stabilized crystalline structure and prevent disintegration of the crystalline structure caused from intercalation and de-intercalation of lithium. When lithium is released from the composite cathode active material during charging, nickel (Ni) ions may migrate into a lithium layer to fill in lattice spaces from which the lithium has been released, thus effectively preventing disintegration of the crystalline structure.” CHO clearly discloses a motivation to coat a lithium oxide core doped with nickel with a cobalt oxide layer that a person of ordinary skill would use in order to make the claimed particle in the instant claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The amendment to claim 1 dated 6/26/2025 recites the limitation "0.67 or less" and claim 3 dated 7/29/2025 recites the limitation "67 or less". This is not supported in the specification and is rejected as new matter.
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 1-4, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170125796 A1, KAMIYAMA in view of US 20190296349 A1, CHO.
Regarding claim 1, KAMIYAMA teaches a positive electrode active material for a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery [title] comprising:
secondary particles formed by aggregation of a plurality of primary particles [0042] containing a lithium transition metal composite oxide [0041], the lithium transition metal composite oxide having a layered structure (that KAMIYAMA refers to as a layered rock salt crystalline structure [0028]) and containing lithium and nickel [0028], wherein
the secondary particles (which KAMIYAMA refers to as first particles) have a smoothness greater than 0.73 and a circularity greater than 0.83,
Regarding the smoothness, the applicant claims a smoothness greater than 0.73, the specification of the instant application indicates that as the smoothness increases the desirability of the product also increases. KAMIYAMA discloses an average surface roughness of 4% or less [abstract]. KAMIYAMA goes on to teach that [0048] the average surface roughness of the first particles is 4% or less and preferably 3% or less.
The instant application measures and describes the physical attribute of the surface of the particle as a fraction of a whole number 1 being completely smooth and 0 being the least smooth. KAMIYAMA describes this same physical property in terms or roughness which is just the inverse of smoothness. KAMIYAMA describes this in terms of percentage which is just the fraction times 100. This would convert to the reference recommending a smoothness of 0.96 or greater.
KAMIYAMA also teaches [0069] that the smoother the first particle is the more even the second particle will coat the surface, in the instant case the coating would be a cobalt containing compound.
Regarding the circularity: KAMIYAMA teaches [0054-0056] a degree of circularity of the first particles is preferably 0.9 or more. KAMIYAMA [0054] further teaches that a degree of circularity near 1 is preferred because the packing density of an active material in preparing a positive electrode is improved as the degree of circularity approaches 1.
The ranges of the instant application for both circularity and smoothness overlap the ranges of KAMIYAMA.
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the range of smoothness in order more evenly coat the particle. It would have also been obvious for this person of ordinary skill to use the instant range of circularity in order to improve the packing density of the active material.
the secondary particles contain cobalt [0080], each of the secondary particles has a first region at a depth of 150 nm from a surface of the respective secondary particle and
a second region at a depth of 10 nm or less from the surface of the respective secondary particle, and
KAMIYAMA discloses [0043] that the size range of the secondary particle (KAMIYAH refers to as the first particle) to preferably be between 8-15 µm with a roughness of 4% or less, this would yield an average variation in surface depth to be between 160 nm to 300 nm from the average surface level depending on the size of the individual particle. These depths that KAMIYAMA discloses would be of the deepest part of the rough surface.
This range completely anticipates both regions claimed in the instant application.
KAMIYAMA does not teach a ratio of a number of moles of cobalt to a total number of moles of metal elements other than lithium in the second region is larger than a ratio of a number of moles of cobalt to a total number of moles of metal elements other than lithium in the first region.
CHO teaches [0013-0015] formula 1 LixM1O2 1.00≤x≤1.04, and
M1 may include cobalt (Co), nickel (Ni), and at least one element selected from Group 4 to Group 13 elements.
CHO teaches [0019] coating a lithium transition metal oxide with a layer including a cobalt oxide.
CHO [0022] also teaches that when the coating layer includes a cobalt compound, the composite cathode active material may have improved structural stability and lifetime characteristics at a high voltage.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to coat a lithium oxide core with a cobalt containing compound in order to improve the structural stability and lifetime characteristics at a high voltage. It is also obvious that the deeper the region the less concentration of cobalt would penetrate into the rough surface of the secondary particle.
Modified KAMIYAMA [0028] in view of CHO discloses LixNiyM1−yO2 (wherein, 0.1≦x≦1.2; 0.3<y<1; and M denotes at least one metal element). So, when Li0.1Ni0.6Co0.4 O2 then
the ratio of the number of moles of cobalt to the total number of moles of metal elements other than lithium in the first region is 0.01 or greater and 0.5 or less,
the ratio of the number of moles of cobalt to the total number of moles of metal elements other than lithium in the second region is 0.05 or greater and 0.9 or less,
a ratio of a number of moles of nickel to the total number of moles of metal elements other than lithium in the first region is 0.6 or greater and 0.98 or less, and
a ratio of a number of moles of nickel to the total number of moles of metal elements other than lithium in the second region is 0.06 or greater and 0.95 or less.
Regarding claim 2: Modified KAMIYAMA (CHO [0061]) teaches a coating layer including a cobalt oxide, when formula 1 is LiCoO2 then the ratio of the number of moles of cobalt has to be greater than .02 at any given region where Li is not counted and no other metal in the coating exists.
Regarding claim 3: KAMIYAMA modified by CHO discloses the positive electrode active material according to claim 1.
KAMIYAMA [0028] discloses a core Li0.1Ni0.6Co0.4 O2 wherein a value obtained by dividing the ratio of the number of moles of cobalt to the total number of moles of metal elements other than lithium in the second region by the ratio of the number of moles of cobalt to the total number of moles of metal elements other than lithium in the first region is 2 or greater and 67 or less.
The samples prepared in CHO where the cobalt coating is applied such as in “Example 6, [0125] 20 g of the lithium transition metal oxide obtained in Example 5 was put into a Retsch ZM-200 mill, grinded, and then passed through a 25-um sieve to collect powder of a size. The collected lithium transition metal oxide and 0.244 g of a cobalt precursor (Co(OH).sub.2) were uniformly distributed with a planetary mixer Thinky ARE-310. The dispersed powder was calcined under an atmospheric condition at about 900° C. for about 5 hours, to thereby obtain a composite cathode active material having, on a surface thereof, a coating layer including a cobalt compound.” Is nearly identical to the deposit heat treatment [0067] step where the cobalt coated core without the addition of nickel is heated [0069] between 500-1100 degrees C for 3- 10 hours.
In this respect, MPEP 2112 sets forth the following:
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 4: Modified KAMIYAMA [0043] teaches the volume average particle diameter of the first particles (secondary particle) is preferably 7 to 30 μm and more preferably 8 to 15 μm. These ranges substantially overlap the range in the instant claim.
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to perform routine experimentation to discover a workable lower range of particle sizes.
Regarding claim 7: KAMIYAMA [0029] teaches Li Ni.35 Mn.35 Co.3 O2
Regarding claim 9: Modified KAMIYAMA teaches a nonaqueous electrolyte lithium-ion secondary battery [abstract] comprising: a positive electrode [0019] containing the positive electrode active material rejected in claim 1 above, a negative electrode, and a nonaqueous electrolyte [0019].
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170125796 A1, KAMIYAMA in view of US 20190296349 A1, CHO as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP 2017188445 A, OGAWA as evidenced by Horiba Scientific: A Guidebook to Particle Size Analysis.
Regarding claim 5: Modified KAMIYAMA does not teach a volume-based cumulative particle size distribution ratio.
OGAWA teaches (page 12 paragraph 20) (top of page 12 of the NPL translation) an active material size distribution of the average particle diameter, D10 = 7.6μm, D50 = 10.4μm, D90 = 16.4μm
OGAWA also teaches (page 5 paragraph 10) (center of page 3 of the NPL) that when the cumulative particle size distribution on the volume basis of the composite oxide particles is narrow and the particle sizes are uniform. That by providing such a feature, both high output characteristics and high durability can be achieved.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to use a narrow particle size distribution on basis of volume in order to achieve a uniform particle size with a higher output and durability.
HORIBA page 5 teaches once “model independent” algorithms were introduced many particle scientists began using different calculations to describe distribution width. One of the common values used for laser diffraction results is the span, with the strict definition shown in the equation below (2):
S
p
a
n
=
D
v
0.9
-
D
v
0.1
D
v
0.5
When the data of OGAWA is calculated using span a result of 0.85 is achieved.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAWRENCE LA RAIA III whose telephone number is (703)756-5441. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur 6:00am-4:00pm.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571) 272-1330. 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.
LAWRENCE LA RAIA III
Examiner
Art Unit 1727
/L.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/WYATT P MCCONNELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727