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 .
Response to Amendment
Amendments filed 11/21/2025 have been entered. Amendments overcome the 102 rejection but do not overcome 103 rejection as previously set forth in Non-Final Office action mailed 09/17/2025 see rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-4, and 6-8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-20130323598-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Liu’, in view of (US-20180026268-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Kim’, as evidenced by ‘Between Scylla and Charybdis: Balancing Among Structural Stability and Energy Density of Layered NCM Cathode Materials for Advanced Lithium-Ion Batteries’ hereinafter referred to as ‘Biasi’
Regarding Claim 1,
Liu teaches a positive active material, comprising: secondary particles in which a plurality of primary particles of a nickel-based composite metal oxide are agglomerated (Liu, “Manganese composite oxide cathode material includes a plurality of secondary particles. Each secondary particle consists of aggregates of fine primary particles.”, see Abstract), wherein the nickel-based composite metal oxide comprises a core and a shell, the shell comprises a plurality of primary particles of the nickel-based composite metal oxide, and (Liu, “the lithium nickel cobalt manganese composite oxide has a structure with different chemical compositions of primary particles from the surface toward core of each of the secondary particles”, see Abstract), a manganese-containing nickel-based composite metal oxide (Liu, “The primary particle with rich Mn content near the surface”, Abstract) (Liu, “Mn content near the surface of the secondary particle provides a high thermal stability for the material, and the primary particle with rich Ni content in the core of the secondary particle provides a high capacity, such that the lithium nickel cobalt manganese composite oxide cathode material has two advantages above, and satisfy the battery demand of high power, high capacity, and high safety.”, see [0013]), and the manganese-containing nickel-based composite metal oxide has a layered crystal structure (The examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would know that that Nickel Cobalt Manganese in this range is layered in crystal structure, as evidenced by Biasi (Biasi, “An overview of the NCM materials employed in this work and their composition are given in Table 1. The samples exhibit a well-developed layered crystalline structure of α-NaFeO2-type”, Structural Characteristics) )(The examiner notes that Liu teaches a range of NCM structures “LiaNi1−b−cCobMncO2, an average formula of each secondary particle satisfying one condition of 0.9≦a≦1.2, 0.08≦b≦0.34, 0.1≦c≦0.4, and 0.18≦b+c≦0.67”, see Clm.1, and Biasi, Table. 1, teaches Li-1.02Ni0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 where equivalent a=1.02, b=0.2, c=0.2 b+c=0.4. This is a layered crystalline structure within the range of Liu. Therefore, the structure taught in Liu is a layered crystalline structure) (Liu, “A spherical nickel cobalt hydroxide was synthesized by chemical co-precipitation, and then a layer of manganese hydroxide was uniformly coated”, see [0031]) and nickel in a greater mole amount than manganese (Liu, “LiaNi1−b−cCobMncO2, an average formula of each secondary particle satisfying one condition of 0.9≦a≦1.2, 0.08≦b≦0.34, 0.1≦c≦0.4, and 0.18≦b+c≦0.67”, see Clm. 1)
Liu does not teach the manganese-containing nickel-based composite metal oxide disposed between grain boundaries of the plurality of primary particles of the nickel-based composite metal oxide.
Kim teaches a metal oxide disposed between grain boundaries of the plurality of primary particles of the nickel-based composite metal oxide (Kim, element compound, 15, Fig. 1C)(Kim, “wherein at least a portion of the secondary particle has a radial array structure, and a hetero-element compound is positioned between the primary particles.”, see Abstract).
Kim teaches that this structure allows for the direct exposure of cracks to the electrolyte to be minimized (Kim, “In addition, in the nickel-based active material according to an embodiment of the present disclosure, the hetero-element compound is located between primary particles. Accordingly, even when cracks occur, direct exposure of the cracked surfaces to the electrolyte may be minimized or reduced”, see [0092]).
Liu and Kim are analogous as they are both of the same field of layered electrode structures.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the structure as taught in Liu to include the manganese material between the grain boundaries of the primary particles as taught in Kim in order to improve the protection from the electrolyte.
Regarding Claim 2,
Modified Liu teaches the positive active material of claim 1, wherein the core does not include the manganese-containing nickel-based composite metal oxide(Liu, “manganese content thereof is decreased from the surface toward the core of the secondary particle”, see [0010])(Liu, “core of the secondary particle, as B shown in FIG. 1, is expressed as Lix′Ni1−y′−z′Coy′MnzO2, wherein 0.9≦x′≦1.2, 0.088≦y′≦0.51, 0≦z′≦0.3, and x=x′, z>z′, y≦y′, y+z>y′+z′.”, see [0026])(The examiner notes that the z value of zero indicates the core has no manganese)
Regarding Claim 3,
Modified Liu teaches the positive active material of claim 1, wherein a manganese concentration increases along a gradient from an interior to a surface of the primary particles of the shell (Liu, “manganese content thereof is decreased from the surface toward the core of the secondary particle”, see [0010]).
Regarding Claim 4,
Modified Liu teaches the positive active materials of claim 1, wherein the manganese-containing nickel-based composite oxide is in an island form or in a fine nanoparticle form between grain boundaries of the plurality of primary particles of the nickel-based composite metal oxide (Liu, “aggregates of fine primary particles. Each secondary particle includes lithium nickel cobalt manganese composite oxide,”, see Abstract).
Regarding Claim 6,
Modified Liu does not teach the positive active material of claim 1, wherein the thickness of the shell is less than or equal to about 2 μm.
Modified Liu does teach another embodiment wherein the shell is less than or equal to 2 μm (Liu, “researchers provide a core-shell complex structure of cathode material,”, see [0008])
Modified Liu teaches that this structure is able to greatly improve the safety of the material (Liu, “This structure greatly improves the safety of material”, see [0008])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art when studying Liu to also study the increased safety from the separate example, and to have modified the shell before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with the shell as taught in the separate part of Liu in order to improve the overall safety of the cathode material, wherein the shell thickness would have been the expected results of the modification (see MPEP 2143(I)(A))
Regarding Claim 7,
Modified Liu teaches wherein each secondary particle has a particle diameter of about 8 μm to 18 μm (Liu, “secondary particle of the lithium nickel cobalt manganese composite oxide cathode material is 0.5-25 μm”, see [0012])
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range 0.5-25 μm completely
encompasses the claimed range of 8μm to 18μm. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 8,
Modified Liu teaches the positive active material of claim 1, wherein the manganese-containing nickel based composite metal oxide is represented by chemical formula 1:
LiNi1-x-y-zCoxMn-yMzO2
Wherein 0<=x<=0.5, 0.001<=y<=0.015, 0<=z<=0.3, and M is at least one metal or metalloid element selected from Ni, Al, Cr, Fe, V, Mg (Liu, “LiaNi1−b−cCobMncO2, an average formula of each secondary particle satisfying one condition of 0.9≦a≦1.2, 0.08≦b≦0.34, 0.1≦c≦0.4, and 0.18≦b+c≦0.67”, see Clm. 1)
(the examiner notes that Liu teaches a composition where z is 0)
b: 0.08 to 0.34; x: 0 to 0.5
Modified Liu does not teach wherein the content of Manganese is 0.001<=y<=0.015, however, Liu does teach wherein the content of manganese is between 0.1 to 0.4 (Liu, “LiaNi1−b−cCobMncO2, an average formula of each secondary particle satisfying one condition of 0.9≦a≦1.2, 0.08≦b≦0.34, 0.1≦c≦0.4, and 0.18≦b+c≦0.67”, see Clm. 1). Liu also teaches that low manganese content decreases capacity loss (Liu, “some researcher select lithium nickel cobalt manganese composite oxide with low manganese content to decrease the capacity loss” see[0006]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the content of manganese to be in the range of 0.001 to 0.015 in order to decrease the capacity loss of the material (see MPEP 2144.05, II).
Regarding Claim 15,
Modified Liu teaches a rechargeable lithium battery, comprising: a positive electrode comprising the positive active material of claim 1 (Liu, “Cathode films were prepared by mixing the DC-LiNi0.72Co0.19Mn0.1O2 cathode material, KS6 graphite, Super-P carbon-black and polyvinylidene fluoride (PVdF), as a binder, in an 88:4:2:6 (wt. %) ratio. N-methyl pyrrolidinone (NMP) was used as the solvent.”, see [0033]); a negative electrode comprising a negative active material ; and an electrolyte (Liu, “the lithium metal foil functioned as the anode. A mixture of ethylene carbonate (EC), diethyl carbonate (DEC), and propylene carbonate (PC) (EC:DEC:PC=30:50:20 vol. %) solvents containing 1 M LiPF6 was used as an electrolyte.”, see [0034])
17. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-20130323598-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Liu’, in view of (US-20180026268-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Kim’, in view of “Low-temperature direct synthesis of layered m-LiMnO2 for lithium-ion battery applications” hereinafter referred to as “Zhou et al.” , in view of (US-20180026268-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Kim’, as evidenced by ‘Between Scylla and Charybdis: Balancing Among Structural Stability and Energy Density of Layered NCM Cathode Materials for Advanced Lithium-Ion Batteries’ hereinafter referred to as ‘Biasi’.
Regarding Claim 9,
Modified Liu does not teach LiMnO2 is on the surface of the primary particle of the shell.
Zhou et all teaches LiMnO2 as a surface coating for electrodes (Zhou et all, “The ability to directly synthesize the material [LiMnO2]at low temperature is crucial because it allows further improvement of material performances through methods such as surface coating” see Abstract)
Zhou et all also teaches LiMnO2 can prevent Mn dissolution (Zhou et al., “The ability to directly synthesize the material [LiMnO2] at low temperature is crucial because it allows further improvement of material performances … use of electrolyte additives to reduce surface reaction and Mn-dissolution.” ,see Abstract)
Liu and Zhou are analogous as they are concerning the same field of battery compositions.
Therefore, 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 surface of the primary particles of the shell Liu with LiMnO2 of Zhou in order to prevent the dissolution of Mn in the shell of the composite and therefore allow for better cycling
19. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-20130323598-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Liu’, in view of (US-20180026268-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Kim’, in view of “Degradation Mechanism of Highly Ni-Rich Li[NixCoyMn1–x–y]O2 Cathodes with x > 0.9’ hereinafter referred to as ‘Kim II’, as evidenced by ‘Between Scylla and Charybdis: Balancing Among Structural Stability and Energy Density of Layered NCM Cathode Materials for Advanced Lithium-Ion Batteries’ hereinafter referred to as ‘Biasi’.
Regarding Claim 5,
Modified Liu does not teach the positive active material of claim 1, wherein the content of manganese is less than 1.5 mol % with respect to a total mole amount of metals excluding lithium of the positive active material (Liu, “LiaNi1−b−cCobMncO2. An average formula of each secondary particle satisfies one condition of 0.9≦a≦1.2, 0.08≦b≦0.34, 0.1≦c≦0.4, and 0.18≦b+c≦0.67”, see Abstract)(The examiner notes that if c is 0.1, b is 0.08, then the total metal mole content is 1, so the manganese content would 1% which is within the range)
Kim II teaches wherein the content of manganese is less than 1.5 mol % with respect to a total mole amount of metals excluding lithium of the manganese-containing nickel-based composite metal oxide (Kim, “In the work presented here, Ni-enriched NCM cathodes with precisely controlled compositions, LNO, Li[Ni0.98Co0.01Mn0.01]O2 (NCM98),” see Introduction)
Kim II teaches that the more nickel content and less manganese content the higher capacity for the cell (see Figure 1).
Modified Liu and Kim II are analogous as they are both of the same field of battery materials.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the material as taught in Liu to that which is taught in Kim II in order to improve the capacity of the cell.
Response to Arguments
On pg. 8, The applicant argues:
“Liu discloses the primary particles on the surface of the secondary particles have a higher Mn content. Liu does not appear to provide the shell includes both the primary particles and another material.”
The examiner finds this persuasive and adds another reference of (US-20180026268-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Kim’ which teaches a material between the grain boundaries of the primary particle.
On pg. 10, the applicant argues:
“Further Liu criticizes third-party core shell coatings for added interface resistance ([0008]), teaching away from adding a separate material… Therefore, Liu should not be modified to provide the claimed positive active material in a future obviousness rejection.”
However, this is not convincing. The examiner would argue that Liu does not teach away from the claimed invention. In the cited passages, Liu claims that the decrease in capacity is from elements formed by doping or modification with a protective layer, “Since the lithium nickel cobalt manganese composite oxide cathode material is not formed by doping different metal element or modification with protective layer, such that there is no obvious interface resistance in the particle and inactive regions which decreases the capacity.” The applicant states in the instant application that the current invention is distinct from a coating or doping, “This positive active material embodiment may be different from a related art configuration that includes coating the surface of a secondary particle or doping deep down to a core of the secondary particle, and may have relatively improved specific capacity of the due to manganese being coated only on the grain boundary of the primary particle down to a set or predetermined depth from the outermost surface.” (see instant application [0060]). Further only, the comparative examples mention doping (see instant application [0121]). Therefore, the highlighted passage does not teach away from the instant application, as the application does not teach doping for which Liu highlights as problematic.
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 SEAMUS PATRICK MCNULTY whose telephone number is (703)756-1909. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:00am to 5pm.
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, Nicholas A. Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/S.P.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights