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 .
Examiner’s Comments
Applicants’ response filed on 8/20/2025 has been fully considered. Claims 5 and 11 are cancelled, claims 16-20 are withdrawn and claims 1-4, 6-10 and 12-20 are pending.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-10 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al (KR 20190079526 A). A machine translation is being used as the English translation for Kang et al (KR 20190079526 A).
Regarding claim 1, Kang discloses a cathode active material (positive electrode active material; paragraph [0001]), wherein:
the cathode active material is a lithium metal oxide particle in the form of a secondary particle comprising a primary particle (a core of a secondary particle in which a plurality of nickel-based lithium metal oxide particles are aggregated; paragraph [0010]),
a coating layer comprising a boron compound is positioned on at least a portion of a surface of the primary particle (a coating matrix which continuously coats an outer surface of the core and an outer surface of the particles in the core and includes boron in the form of one or more amorphous compound; paragraphs [0010] and [0047]), and
the boron compound includes an amorphous structure (boron in the form of one or more amorphous compound and boron compound being LiBO2; paragraphs [0010] and [0047]).
Kang does not disclose the cathode active material comprising a content of the boron compound in the secondary particle being 0.001 mol to 0.007 mol
However, Kang discloses the positive electrode active material comprising the coating matrix of boron compound included in an amount of 200 to 10,000 ppm based on the total amount of positive electrode active material (content of boron compound; paragraph [0074]).
LiBO2 has a molar mass of 49.75 mol/g. The conversion of ppm to mols of LiBO2 is (ppm/1000 ÷ 49.75 mol/g). The range of 200 to 10,000 ppm of boron compound of LiBO2 is 0.004 mol (200/1000 ÷ 49.75 mol/g) to 0.201 mol (10000/1000 ÷ 49.75 mol/g). This range of boron compound overlaps the claimed range for the content of boron compound.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference in order to supplement or improve the insufficient thermal and structural stability of the core (paragraph [0075]). It has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Please see MPEP 2144.05, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In regard to the porosity percentage of the lithium metal oxide particle represented by claimed Equation 1 being in the range of 0.4% to 6% based on Equation 1:
porosity (%) = (pore area of lithium metal oxide particle cross-section A/area of lithium metal oxide particle cross-section A) x 100
and wherein in Equation 1, A is the area of the cross-section including the diameter of the lithium metal oxide particle, since Kang discloses the core having a chemical formula 1 of LiaNi1-x-yCoxMnyM1zO2 meeting the relationships of 0 < x ≤ 0.5 and 0 < y ≤ 0.5, which is the same as one of Applicant’s preferred material for the lithium metal oxide particle, and the boron compound being LiBO2, which is the same as one of Applicant’s preferred materials for the boron compound in pg. 8 of Applicant’s Specification, the secondary particle in which a plurality of nickel-based lithium metal oxide particles are aggregated of Kang would inherently have a porosity in the range of 0.4% to 6%, as the boron compound contributes to the lower porosity by filling the empty space between the primary particles (pg. 5 of Applicant’s Specification).
Regarding claim 2, Kang discloses the limitations of the cathode active material of claim 1 above and discloses the cathode active material comprising the boron compound comprising Li and B (positive electrode active material comprising the boron compound being LiBO2; paragraph [0047]).
Regarding claim 3, Kang discloses the limitations of the cathode active material of claim 1 above and discloses the cathode active material comprising the primary particle comprising the boron compound on at least the portion thereof is positioned inside the lithium metal oxide particle (positive electrode active material comprising the coating matrix which continuously coats an outer surface of the core and an outer surface of the particles in the core; paragraph [0010]).
Regarding claim 4, Kang discloses the limitations of the cathode active material of claim 1 above.
In regard to the cathode active material comprising a particle hardness of the lithium metal oxide particle is in the range of 151 MPa to 200 MPa, since Kang discloses the core having a chemical formula 1 of LiaNi1-x-yCoxMnyM1zO2 meeting the relationships of 0 < x ≤ 0.5 and 0 < y ≤ 0.5, which is the same as one of Applicant’s preferred material for the lithium metal oxide particle, and the boron compound being discloses the boron compound being LiBO2, which is the same as one of Applicant’s preferred materials for the boron compound in pg. 8 of Applicant’s Specification; the secondary particle in which a plurality of nickel-based lithium metal oxide particles are aggregated would inherently have a particle hardness in the range of 151 MPa to 200 MPa as the boron compound contributes to the dense structure of the particles which contributes to the particle hardness (pg. 5 of Applicant’s Specification).
Regarding claim 6, Kang discloses the limitations of the cathode active material of claim 1 above.
Kang does not disclose the cathode active material comprising an average particle size of the primary particles increasing in the range of 1.3 times to 2.5 times compared to a case where no coating layer including a boron compound is position on at least a portion of a surface of the primary particle although fired at the same time.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the average particle size of the primary particles to be increasing in the range of 1.3 times to 2.5 times compared to a case where no coating layer including a boron compound is position on at least a portion of a surface of the primary particle although fired at the same time because doing so would provide desired coagulation into secondary particles and prevents energy density from decreasing (paragraph [0036]).
Regarding claim 7, Kang discloses the limitations of the cathode active material of claim 6 above.
Kang does not disclose the cathode active material comprising the average particle diameter (D50) of the primary particle being in the range of 0.3 µm to 2 µm.
However, Kang discloses the positive electrode active material comprising the primary particles having a D50 of 50 nm to 1 µm (paragraph [0036]).
The range for the D50 of the primary particles overlaps the claimed range for the D50 of the primary particle. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference because doing so would provide desired coagulation into secondary particles and prevents energy density from decreasing (paragraph [0036]). It has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Please see MPEP 2144.05, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 8, Kang discloses the limitations of the cathode active material of claim 6 above.
Kang does not disclose the cathode active material comprising small particles having an average particle diameter (D50) in the range of 1 µm to 6 µm.
However, Kang discloses the positive electrode active material comprising the primary particles having a D50 of 50 nm to 1 µm (paragraph [0036]).
The range for the D50 of the primary particles overlaps the claimed range for the D50 of the small particles. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference because doing so would provide desired coagulation into secondary particles and prevents energy density from decreasing (paragraph [0036]). It has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Please see MPEP 2144.05, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 9, Kang discloses the limitations of the cathode active material of claim 8 above.
In regard to the cathode active material comprising a full width at half maximum FWHM(110) of a diffraction peak of the (110) plane by X- ray diffraction of the small particles is 0.15° to 0.19°
Since the D50 of the primary particles of Kang overlaps the claimed range of 1 µm to 6 µm for the D50 of the small particles, the primary particles would inherently have a FWHM of a diffraction peak of the (110) plane by X-ray diffraction of the small particles being 0.15° to 0.19°.
Regarding claim 10, Kang discloses the limitations of the cathode active material of claim 1 above and discloses the cathode active material comprising the boron compound comprising LiBO2 (positive electrode active material comprising the boron compound being LiBO2; paragraph [0047]).
Regarding claim 12, Kang discloses the limitations of the cathode active material of claim 1 above.
Kang does not disclose the cathode active material comprising the content of nickel in metal in the secondary particle is 0.65 mol to 0.99 mol
However, Kang discloses the positive electrode active material comprising chemical formula 1 of LiaNi1-x-yCoxMnyM1zO2 meeting the relationships of 0 < x ≤ 0.5 and 0 < y ≤ 0.5 (paragraphs [0034]-0035]).
The composition of Ni in chemical formula 1 overlaps the claimed range for the content of nickel. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference in order to have a higher discharge capacity per unit weight than lithium cobalt oxide (paragraph [0031]). It has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Please see MPEP 2144.05, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 13, Kang discloses the limitations of the cathode active material of claim 1 above and discloses the cathode active material comprising the lithium metal oxide further comprises at least one of Al and Zr in the secondary particle (positive electrode active material comprising chemical formula 1 of LiaNi1-x-yCoxMnyM1zO2 where M1 is one or more elements selected from the group consisting of W, Mo, Zr, Ti, Mg, Ta, Al, Fe, V, Cr, Ba, Ca, Zn, and Nb; paragraphs [0034]-0035]).
Regarding claim 14, Kang discloses the limitations of the cathode active material of claim 1 above and discloses the cathode active material comprising a surface layer positioned on a surface of the lithium metal oxide particle (positive electrode active material comprising coating particles in the coating matrix including at least one metal element among W, Al, Ti and Zr; paragraphs [0052]-[0053]).
Regarding claim 15, Kang discloses the limitations of the cathode active material of claim 14 above and discloses the cathode active material comprising the surface layer comprising at least one selected from the group consisting of B, Zr, Al, W, Nb, P, Ce, Ti, Ta, Co, Si, and Mn (positive electrode active material comprising coating particles in the coating matrix including at least one metal element among W, Al, Ti and Zr; paragraphs [0052]-[0053]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9, filed 8/20/2025, with respect to the 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive.
The 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's following arguments filed 8/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue that the 200 to 10,000 ppm disclosed in Kang refers to the amount of the entire coating matrix based on the total weight of a cathode active material and does not specifically disclose the content of the amorphous boron compound included in the coating matrix.
This argument is not persuasive as paragraphs [0074]-[0075] of Kang states that the coating matrix is included in an amount of 200 to 10,000 ppm based on total amount of positive electrode active material and doing so would improve the thermal and structural stability of the core. The coating matrix includes an amorphous boron compound (see paragraph [0047] of Kang). The combination of these disclosures would provide an amount of amorphous boron compound that overlaps the claimed range for the amount of amorphous boron compound.
Applicants argue that the coating matrix in Kang is located on the surface of secondary particles whereas the present invention is directed to a boron compound located at interfaces between primary particles inside a secondary particle, which is fundamentally different.
This argument is not persuasive as the coating matrix which includes an amorphous boron compound coats and outer surface of the core and the outer surface of the particles inside the core. This would result in interfaces between the primary particles of the secondary particle being coated with the coating matrix.
Applicants argue that Exemplary Embodiments 1 to 12, in which the content of the boron compound inside the secondary particle is in the range of 0.001 mole to 0.007 mol exhibits overall superior performance in terms of discharge capacity, initial efficiency, output characteristics, capacity retention and high temperature resistance increase rate.
This argument is not persuasive as the claims are not commensurate in scope with Exemplary Embodiments 1 to 12. Exemplary Embodiments 1 to 12 uses Li3BO3 as the amorphous boron compound, while claim 1 requires any amorphous boron compound.
Also, the alleged unexpected results of discharge capacity, initial efficiency, output characteristics, capacity retention and high temperature resistance increase rate are realized when the cathode active material is provided in a cathode with a cathode current collector, a lithium metal anode, an electrolyte solution and a polypropylene separator in a 2032 coin cell battery.
Applicants argue that the examples of Kang provides a crystalline boron compound on a secondary particle.
This argument is not persuasive as the Examiner is referring to the reference as a whole and not only the examples. Paragraphs [0010] and [0047] of Kang discloses that amorphous boron compounds can be provided in the coating matrix which coats the outer surface of the secondary particle and the surfaces of the primary particles inside the secondary particle.
Applicants argue that a boron-containing coating layer is formed in Kang and cannot penetrate into the interfaces between the primary particles inside a secondary particle.
This argument is not persuasive as the Examiner is referring to the reference as a whole and not only the examples. Paragraphs [0010] and [0047] of Kang discloses that amorphous boron compounds can be provided in the coating matrix which coats the outer surface of the secondary particle and the surfaces of the primary particles inside the secondary particle.
Applicants argue that Kang does not disclose the porosity of the lithium metal oxide particles and does not disclose any process for adjusting porosity to fall within the specific range.
This argument is not persuasive as paragraphs [0010] and [0047] of Kang discloses that amorphous boron compounds can be provided in the coating matrix which coats the outer surface of the secondary particle and the surfaces of the primary particles inside the secondary particle. This would result in primary particles coated with the amorphous boron compound and the outer surface of the secondary particle coated with the amorphous boron compound. Also, pg. 5 of Applicant’s Specification states that the amorphous boron compound contributes to the porosity of the secondary particles.
Since Kang discloses the boron compound being LiBO2, which is the same as one of Applicant’s preferred materials for the boron compound in pg. 8 of Applicant’s Specification, the secondary particle in which a plurality of nickel-based lithium metal oxide particles are aggregated of Kang would inherently have a porosity in the range of 0.4% to 6% where Equation 1 is porosity (%) = (pore area of lithium metal oxide particle cross-section A/area of lithium metal oxide particle cross-section 4) x 100 wherein in Equation 1, A is the area of the cross-section including the diameter of the lithium metal oxide particle as the boron compound contributes to the lower porosity by filling the empty space between the primary particles (pg. 5 of Applicant’s Specification).
Applicants argue that Exemplary Embodiments 1 to 12 for a porosity range of 0.4% to 6% exhibits overall superior performance in terms of discharge capacity, initial efficiency, output characteristics, capacity retention and high temperature resistance increase rate and that Kang does not realize the porosity range.
This argument is not persuasive as the claims are not commensurate in scope with Exemplary Embodiments 1 to 12. Exemplary Embodiments 1 to 12 uses Li3BO3 as the amorphous boron compound, while claim 1 requires any amorphous boron compound.
Also, the alleged unexpected results of discharge capacity, initial efficiency, output characteristics, capacity retention and high temperature resistance increase rate are realized when the cathode active material is provided in a cathode with a cathode current collector, a lithium metal anode, an electrolyte solution and a polypropylene separator in a 2032 coin cell battery.
Furthermore, the paragraphs [0010] and [0047] of Kang discloses that amorphous boron compounds can be provided in the coating matrix which coats the outer surface of the secondary particle and the surfaces of the primary particles inside the secondary particle. This would result in primary particles coated with the amorphous boron compound and the outer surface of the secondary particle coated with the amorphous boron compound. Also, pg. 5 of Applicant’s Specification states that the amorphous boron compound contributes to the porosity of the secondary particles. Therefore, the claimed porosity range would be inherently by Kang.
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 or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SATHAVARAM I REDDY whose telephone number is (571)270-7061. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM-6:00 PM EST.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571)-272-1291.
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.
/SATHAVARAM I REDDY/Examiner, Art Unit 1785
/MARK RUTHKOSKY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1785