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 Claims 5 and 11 are cancelled, claims 16-20 are withdrawn and claims 1-4, 6-10 and 12-20 are pending.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/16/2026 has been entered.
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, 3-4, 6-10 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al (KR 20190079526 A) in view of Uchiyama (US 2015/0024280 A1).
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 Li2B4O7; 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]).
Li2B4O7 has a molar mass of 169.11 mol/g. The conversion of ppm to mols of Li2B4O7 is (ppm/1000 ÷ 169.11 mol/g). The range of 200 to 10,000 ppm of boron compound of LiBO2 is 0.0012 mol (200/1000 ÷ 49.75 mol/g) to 0.059 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] of Kang). 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 materials for the lithium metal oxide particle, and the boron compound being Li2B4O7, 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).
Kang does not disclose the cathode active material comprising the boron compound comprising Li3BO3.
However, Uchiyama discloses a cathode active material comprising positive electrode active material particle of a secondary particle formed by aggregation of primary particles (paragraph [0029]), a surface of the positive electrode active material particle coated with a reaction suppressing layer (paragraph [0028]) and the boron compound comprising Li3BO3 (ingredient of reaction suppressing layer includes Li3BO3 and LiBO2; paragraph [0042]).
Uchiyama discloses Li3BO3 and LiBO2-- as suitable alternatives for the ingredient in the reaction suppressing layer. Kang discloses the boron compound in the coating matrix coating an outer surface of the core comprising LiBO2-- (see paragraph [0047] of Kang).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cathode active material of Kang to substitute the LiBO2-- of Kang for the Li3BO3 of Uchiyama because having the required ingredient of Li3BO3 in the reaction suppressing layer suppresses a reaction between the active material and the solid electrolyte while providing lithium conductivity (paragraph [0042] of Uchiyama).
Regarding claim 3, Kang and Uchiyama disclose the cathode active material of claim 1 as noted above and Kang 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 and Uchiyama disclose the cathode active material of claim 1 as noted 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 Li2B4O7, 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 and Uchiyama disclose the cathode active material of claim 1 as noted 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] of Kang).
Regarding claim 7, Kang and Uchiyama disclose the cathode active material of claim 6 as noted 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] of Kang). 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 and Uchiyama disclose the cathode active material of claim 1 as noted 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 and Uchiyama disclose the cathode active material of claim 8 as noted 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 and Uchiyama disclose the cathode active material of claim 1 as noted above and Kang discloses the cathode active material comprising the boron compound comprising Li2B4O7 (positive electrode active material comprising the boron compound being Li2B4O7; paragraph [0047]).
Regarding claim 12, Kang and Uchiyama disclose the cathode active material of claim 1 as noted 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] of Kang). 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 and Uchiyama disclose the cathode active material of claim 1 as noted above and Kang 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 and Uchiyama disclose the cathode active material of claim 1 as noted above and Kang 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 and Uchiyama disclose the cathode active material of claim 14 as noted above and Kang 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 with respect to claim 1 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.
Applicants argue that Kang does not disclose the boron compound comprising Li3BO3.
This argument is moot as Kang does not disclose the boron compound comprising Li3BO3. Therefore, the previous 103 rejection has been withdrawn. However, a new ground of rejection has been noted above.
Applicant's following arguments filed 4/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue that the present invention does not include crystalline metal compound particles and instead is a coating based solely on an amorphous boron compound.
This argument is not persuasive as the claims are open to additional components due to the use of open language such as “comprising”.
Applicants argue that Kang does not disclose controlling the average particle size of the primary particles within a range of 0.3 µm to 2 µm.
This argument is not persuasive as the range of 50 nm to 1 µm disclosed in Kang overlaps the claimed range for the average particle size of the primary particles. Also, the disclosure as a whole is being relied upon and not only the examples.
However, “applicant must look to the whole reference for what it teaches. Applicant cannot merely rely on the examples and argue that the reference did not teach others.” In re Courtright, 377 F.2d 647, 153 USPQ 735,739 (CCPA 1967).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication 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. 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.
/SATHAVARAM I REDDY/Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights