DETAILED ACTION
Claim Status
The claims are new amended and includes former Claim 15 into Claim 11.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/15/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The remarks argue on page 8, the following:
The Office based the rejections in part on, "Lee teaches a positive electrode active material (abstract). The reference explains in the background that lithium batteries typically have problems of rapid deterioration due to repeated charging or discharging (page 3, lines 9-12). Typically, a layered lithium cobalt oxide is preferred because of their excellent lifetime (page 3, lines 13-16).
Adding a nickel, cobalt and manganese oxide has a lower cost and can be used at a high capacity and at a high voltage, but it also has its disadvantages (pg 3, lines 28-32). Lee describes making a positive electrode that has a core and shell configuration (pg 4, lines 3-7). Use of this core/shell structure facilitates reversing intercalating and deintercalating lithium (page 4, lines 33-35). The amount of nickel and cobalt contained in the core may be increased (page 6, last para). When this is done, reduction of the capacity can be prevented while exhibiting thermal stability (page 6, last para). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the core of Kim, Zhang and Kaneda in a core/shell configuration, as taught by Lee because the reduction of the capacity can be prevented while exhibiting thermal stability" (see Pages 11-12 of the Office Action dated 04/07/26).
Applicant respectfully disagrees. Claim 11 has been amended to recite that (1) the particulate transition metal (oxy)hydroxide is in the form of secondary particles, and (2) the nickel content at the center of the particles is higher than at an outer surface of the secondary particles. Notably, the present application does not teach or suggest core-shell particles as described by the Office. Rather, the term "core" was previously used in cancelled claim 15 merely as a linguistic equivalent to "center". These definitions are readily apparent in the present application (see, e.g., Paragraph [0148] and corresponding Fig. 2 of the published application).
Moreover, claim 11 does not recite a core-shell structure and instead recites secondary particles, where at least 60 vol.-% of the secondary particles consist of agglomerated primary particles that have a primary particle orientation that is a radial orientation or deviated to a perfectly radial orientation of at most 11 degrees in an SEM analysis, wherein the primary particle orientation is an orientation of an eigenvector with the largest eigenvalue of a covariance matrix calculated for a binary mask of the primary particle. Altogether, the present claims recite secondary particles that primarily consist of agglomerated primary particles. However, there is not a core-shell configuration as appears to have been construed by the Office.
In contrast to the present claims, as the Office noted, Lee teaches a layered electrode active material in a core-shell configuration. Although the Office described the layer structure of Lee as merely "typical", Lee is not so broad. Rather, Lee narrowly teaches throughout its disclosure that its materials include a layered structure (see, e.g., Abstract and claim 1). In particular, Lee teaches a material including: a core; a shell located to surround the core; and a buffer layer located between the core and the shell, and including a three-dimensional network structure connecting the core and the shell and a pore (see claim 1). Notably, the shell of Lee takes up 89 vol% of the particles of Lee (see Table 1). Such a configuration is entirely different from the present claims and the other cited references. Thus, even if a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to employ the core of Kim modified by Zhang and Kaneda in a core-shell configuration of Lee, which Applicant does not concede, then this person still would not have arrived at the present claims at least because they would have also implemented the further structural elements of Lee (i.e., the layered structure with the shell, the buffer layer, and a three-dimensional network structure connecting the core and the shell and a pore). Lee is deficient at least for these reasons.
In addition, Applicant respectfully notes that Lee teaches secondary particles formed from agglomerated primary particles only for its core (see, e.g., claim 11). However, the outer surface of Lee corresponds to the outer surface of its shell rather than a surface of its core, which is instead connected to a three-dimensional network structure of a buffer, which connects the core and the shell and a pore. Thus, even if a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include a nickel content at the center of its secondary particles higher than at the outer surface of its secondary particles, which Applicant does not concede, then such higher concentrations would have still been in the core of Lee and not at the surface of the particles of Lee. Lee is further deficient at least for these reasons.
Accordingly, it would not have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to selectively combine Kim, Zhang, and Kaneda, and Lee to arrive at the present claims. There is no teaching, suggestion, motivation, or other reason in Kim, Zhang, and Kaneda, and Lee to make such a combination or modifications. Impermissible hindsight would have been required.
The remarks are respectfully not persuasive. Lee, as stated in the prior rejection, does describe a core and shell configuration. The vol of the shell is respectfully not relevant since the claims do not disclaim a volume amount. As explained in the rejection, Lee explains that there are certain drawbacks to lithium batteries and that a configuration of a core and shell configuration of a lithium, nickel, cobalt and manganese positive electrode has the benefits of facilitating reversable intercalating and deintercalating of lithium (see pg 4, lines 33-35). Further, Lee explains that the amount of nickel and cobalt in the core may be increased (page 6, last para), which improves the capacity of the battery while improving thermal stability.
As to the core being the portion that has agglomerated primary particles, these features still read on the claims. The outer layer of Lee (the shell) is the lithium-containing portion. The core contains a higher content of nickel, which also corresponds to the claims. The shell of Lee does correspond to the outer surface of Claim 1. The presence of the buffer layer functions as an intermediate layer between the core and the outer shell or outer surface.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 11, 12, 14, 17, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US Pub.: 2018/0151876) and in view of Zhang et al. “Constructing radially oriented macroporous spheres with central cavities” . .. and in vew of Kaneda (WO 2018/021555) above, and further in view of Lee (KR 2017/0103699).
Kim describes an electrode composition (title) useable as a positive electrode (para. 2) that includes the composition:
(Ni1-x-y-zCoxMnyMz)(OH)2, where x is 0 or between 0 and 1 and y and z are 0 or between zero and 0.05. M can be Ti, Zr, Al or Mg (para. 64). The values can overlap the claimed ranges and cumulatively, they can overlap the claimed ranges where a+b+c=1. In this case, the value of t=0.
Kim explains that the particles are arranged in a radial direction (para. 86 and Fig. 1C and para. 25, 28, 29). The plates are composed of primary particles (para. 41) agglomerated into secondary particles (para. 24) and then radially arranged (para. 25).
As to the 60% alignment feature, Kim does not expressly teach this feature.
Zhang describes constructing radially oriented macroporous spheres in a lithium battery anode (title). Using various compositions, Zhang teaches arranging the nanorodes into a spherical array (see Figure 1a) to produce a secondary hole at the center (see Fig. 1a), where the radially aligned columnar structure facilitates fast lithium ion transport and expansion (see Fig. 1a). Zhang shows various compositions that use this similar structure (see Fig. 2a, Fig. 3, and Fig. 4, which shows the gradual assembly of the structure over time and temperature). The structure is also shown in Fig. 6b, which shows the alignment of the nanoparticles in a way that forms a circle at the center (see Fig. 2, b). Zhang shows in Fig. 1a that the alignment of nanorods require a certain spaced-apart alignment in order to create the center hole (see Fig. 1a and the circle under the nanorods).
Therefore, although Zhang does not specifically state that this radial arrangement contains at least 60 vol. % that have a radial orientation of at most 11 degrees deviation from a perfect radial orientation, since Zhang shows that the columns are so radially arranged so as to form a hole at the center, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the nanorods at least meet this claimed feature in order to create the central hole in the sphere.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the perfectly radial arrangement of Zhang in the electrode material of Kim because this structure facilitates lithium-ion transport as well as facilitates a large volume expansion.
As to the cumulative pore volume, Kaneda describes a nickel manganese composite hydrohydroxide material for use in positive electrodes (title). The compound can include Ni, manganese, cobalt in a hydroxide-form (page 4, last two para).
As to the pore volume, Kaneda explains that the composite hydroxide preferably has a pore volume, as measured by nitrogen adsorption of 0.01 to 0.04 cm3/g (page 5, second to last para). The filling property is excellent (for lithium) and the output is suitable for use as a positive electrode (pg 5, second to last para).
The reference explains that when the pore volume is less than 0.01 ml/g, the penetration of the Kaneda compound into the particles may not be sufficient and the reactivity may decrease (pg 5, second to last para).
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges overlap or are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 I.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ particles with a pore volume of 0.01 to 0.04 cm3/g, as taught by Kaneda for use with the positive electrode particles of Kim and Zhang because these pore volumes have excellent filling properties and output characteristics suitable for positive electrodes.
The references do not specifically teach that the positive electrode contains a core and shell.
Lee teaches a positive electrode active material (abstract). The reference explains in the background that lithium batteries typically have problems of rapid deterioration due to repeated charging or discharging (page 3, lines 9-12). Typically, a layered lithium cobalt oxide is preferred because of their excellent lifetime (page 3, lines 13-16). Adding a nickel, cobalt and manganese oxide has a lower cost and can be used at a high capacity and at a high voltage, but it also has its disadvantages (pg 3, lines 28-32).
As a solution to this, Lee describes making a positive electrode that has a core and shell configuration (pg 4, lines 3-7). Use of this core/shell structure facilitates reversing intercalating and deintercalating lithium (page 4, lines 33-35). The amount of nickel and cobalt contained in the core may be increased (page 6, last para). When this is done, reduction of the capacity can be prevented while exhibiting thermal stability (page 6, last para).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the core of Kim, Zhang and Kaneda in a core/shell configuration, as taught by Lee because the reduction of the capacity can be prevented while exhibiting thermal stability.
As to Claim 12, a of Claim 12 describes the molar ratio of Ni in a range of 0.15-0.95, b describes the amount of M, which can be Co and at least one metal, which can be Ti, Zr, Al and Mg, where the combination is an amount b, which ranges from 0-0.35. The value of c describes the amount of Mn of the composition to be from 0 to 0.8.
Kim teaches that the amount of nickel can be 1-x-y-z, where x can be from 0-1, y can be from 0-1 and z can be from 0-1. Therefore, the amount of nickel can be from 0.3 to 0.9.
Kim then teaches that the composition can include Co in an amount of x, along with an M in an amount of z. x is from 0-1 and z can be zero or up to 1. Therefore, the combination of these can result in a total molar value of 0.2. Kim then explains that the amount of Mn is a y amount, which can be from 0-1.
As to Claim 14, Kaneda explains that the size index of their composite oxide, when calculated as (D90-D10)/average particle size, it has a spread of 0.7 or more and has an upper limit of 1.2 (page 6, para. 1). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges overlap or are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 I.”
This range is preferred because it does not require excessive mixing or the production of coarse particles (page 6, para. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the size of the particle distribution of (D90-D10)/average particle size, to a range of 0.7 to 1.2, as taught by Kaneda, for use with the positive electrode of Kim, Zhang and Kaneda because this size range avoids excessive mixing and prevents coarse particles.
As to Claim 17, Kim teaches that the hydroxide of Formula 2 is mixed with a lithium precursor (para. 55), followed by heating the mixture at a temperature of 600-850 degrees C (para. 61).
As to Claim 23, Kim teaches that the size of the secondary particles can range from 2-18 µm (para. 27).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, Zhang, Kaneda and Lee as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Hiroaki (WO 2019/058681).
The references do not describe the features of Claim 13.
Hiroaki describes an electrode material used in positive electrodes (abstract). In their positive electrode, Hiroaki describes a BET specific surface area of 50-200 m2/g (see section under “BET specific surface area”, para. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a specific surface area of 50-200 m2/g, as taught by Hiroaki for use with the positive electrode of Kim, Zhang, Kaneda and Lee because these are known to lead to predictable results.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, Zhang, Kaneda and Lee as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Kim (CN 103151511).
As mentioned above, Lee teaches that the amount of nickel and cobalt contained in the core may be increased (page 6, last para). When this is done, reduction of the capacity can be prevented while exhibiting thermal stability (page 6, last para).
Lee does not state that the amount of nickel in the core is 1-10mol% more than the amount at the outer surface.
Kim teaches a positive active material that includes lithium (title). The battery includes a core/shell configuration and includes a nickel-based composite oxide (abstract). The composite oxide includes lithium, nickel, cobalt, manganese and an oxide (para. 16). Kim explains in one example that the quantity of nickel at the core can range from 50-90mol% (para. 41) and the amount in the shell can range from 45-55 mol% (para. 41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use nickel at the core in an amount of 50-90 mol% and an amount in the shell in an amount of 45-55mol%, as taught by Kim for use with the cathode of Kim, Zhang, Kaneda and Lee because this gradient is known to be effective for use in core/shell positive electrode configurations.
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 SHENG HAN DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5823. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30. 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, Fung Coris can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/SHENG H DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 July 30, 2026
Prosecution Insights