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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/15/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
An objection is applied to claim 7, which is missing ‘=’ in its definition of ΔD50(%) in Equation 3:
“[Equation 3] ΔD50(%) [(D50 measured without pressure-treating the cathode active material - D50 measured after pressure-treating the cathode active material)/D50- measured without pressure-treating the cathode active material] x 100”.
Support for this interpretation is found in the description of Equation 3 in pp. 10 of the specification filed 12/17/2024.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN-108751265-A; see attached machine translation) in view of Blangero (US-20170125808-A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Chen discloses a cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery comprising a lithium metal oxide, wherein an experimental example (Example 1, [0052-0056]) comprises a molar percentage of nickel based on moles of all elements except for lithium and oxygen of 85 mol% ([0056]), which is 80 mol% or more as claimed in claim 1.
Chen does not expressly specify that the cathode active material has a particle size distribution change rate (ΔX) of 20.3% or more to 60% or less represented by Equation 1:
[Equation 1] ΔX(%)=(X4.5t-X)/X * 100,
wherein X is a (D90-D10)/D50 value of the cathode active material measured without pressure-treating the cathode active material, and X4.5t is a (D90-D10)/D50 value of the cathode active material measured after pressure-treating the cathode active material at 4.5 t/cm2 for 1 minute.
However, Applicant’s procedure to make the experimental embodiments of the cathode active material indicates the criticality of preferred conditions:
1) performing co-precipitation of a metal hydroxide precursor with a sufficiently long residence time of 5-8 hours (inst. spec. filed 12/17/2024, Example 1, pp. 15¶6) compared to 2-4 hours (Comparative example 1, pp. 18 ¶3),
2) calcinating the precursor at a sufficiently high temperature 740-760 °C (Example 1, pp. 16 ¶1) compared to 720-740 °C (Comparative example 1, pp. 18 ¶3), and
3) performing calcination for a sufficiently long duration of 16 hours (Example 1, pp. 16 ¶1) compared to 10 hours (Comparative example 1, pp. 18 ¶3),
where producing the active material under at least two of the preferred conditions 1), 2), or 3) forms a cathode active material having a ΔX% within 20.3% to 56.4% (Examples 1-4, pp. 27 Table 2) as compared to the comparative examples manufactured outside these conditions (Comparative Examples 1-4, pp. 27 Table 2).
Chen Example 1 is produced along similar manufacturing conditions where co-precipitation is performed with a co-precipitation time of about 20.8 hours (240L/h inlet flow rate to a 5 m3, i.e., 5000L reactor) ([0053]) before being sintered at 760 °C for 12 h ([0056]). These synthesis conditions fall within or overlap with the range of criticality demonstrated in Applicant’s examples 1 and 2, produced with 1) a sufficiently long precipitation time (5-8 hours in Example 1, inst. spec. pp. 18 ¶6; compared to 2-4 hours Comparative example 1, pp. 22 ¶1), and 2) calcination at a temperature of 740-760 °C (Chen uses 760 °C) for 3) a duration between 10 hours (Example 2, p. 21 ¶2) to 16 hours (Example 1, p. 20 ¶4), such that a skilled artisan would expect Chen’s material to exhibit similar properties to Applicant examples 1 and 2, which comprise a ΔX of 20.3 to 33.5% (inst. spec. pp. 24 Table 2), which is within the particle size distribution change rate ΔX of 20.3% or more to 60% or less as claimed in claim 1, and within the range of 20.3% to 40% claimed in claim 4.
Assuming arguendo that Applicant provides persuasive evidence that Chen’s cathode active material is so dissimilar to Applicant’s examples 1 and 2 that a ΔX of the material must lie outside of the range of 20.3% to 60% in claim 1 or 20.3 to 40% in claim 4, Blangero (US20170125808A1), analogous as a cathode active material with experimental examples (EX 8, EX9, EX10) comprising 80 mol% Ni ([0133]), teaches optimizing the particle brittleness through adjustments to the Ni content and Li content of the material ([0133]). Decreasing Ni and/or Li content reduces the particle brittleness ΔΓ(P), this value quantifying the degree of particle breakage into smaller particles during compression ([0111], FIGs. 1. 2). Reducing the brittleness ΔΓ(P) improves the compression resistance of the particles ([0133], see EX8-EX10, pp. 11 Table 3, Table 5), but reduces the initial capacity QD1 (pp. 11 Table 2).
While not identical in scope to Applicant’s measure of ΔX, being a change in (D90-D10)/D50 during compression to 4.5 t/cm2 (see claim 1), Blangero’s brittleness ΔΓ(P) is linked to ΔX because active material particle breakage results in changes to D90, D10, and D50 during compression (see Blangero FIGs. 1, 2, [0111], showing changes in particle size and size distribution over compression over 0-300 MPA, about 0-3 tons/cm2), affecting values of both ΔΓ(P) and ΔX.
Thus, in seeking to balance considerations of improving compression resistance of Chen’s cathode active material and providing sufficient initial capacity, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the particle brittleness as taught by Blangero, and in doing so, a skilled artisan would necessarily adjust the ΔX of the material through affecting the values of D90, D10, and D50 during compression to 4.5t. In doing so, a skilled artisan would reasonably utilize at least a portion of the claimed ranges of ΔX being 20.3% or more to 60% or less claimed in claim 1 and 20.3% or more and 40% or less claimed in claim 4, given that Chen’s cathode active material is at least appreciably similar to Applicant’s materials exhibiting these values of ΔX (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Such an optimization, which may be performed through adjustment of Ni content and/or Li content as taught by Blangero [0133] (EX 8, EX9, EX10) would be made with a reasonable expectation of success, as Chen’s cathode active material having the general formula LiaNi1-x-y-z-jCoxMnyAlz MjO2 allows for varying Li content within a range of 0.95≤a≤1.25 and Ni content within a range of about 0 to 1.0 (Chen [0027]).
Similarly, although Chen does not define a specific surface area change rate (ΔY) of 50% or less, represented by Equation 2:
[Equation 2] ΔY(%)=(Y4.5t-Y)/Y*100
where Y is a BET value of the cathode active material measured without pressure-treating the cathode active material, and Y4.5t is a BET value of the cathode active material measured after pressure-treating the cathode active material at 4.5 t/cm2 for 1 minute, a skilled artisan would reasonably expect Chen’s material to exhibit substantially similar properties to that of Applicant examples 1 and 2, which comprise a ΔY(%) of 12.1% to 29.7% (inst. spec. pp. 24 Table 2), which is within the specific surface area change rate (ΔY) of 50% or less claimed in claim 1 and 30% or less as claimed in claim 4.
Assuming arguendo that Applicant provides convincing evidence that Chen, taken alone or in view of Blangero, is so dissimilar to Applicant’s examples 1 and 2 that a ΔY of the material must lie outside of the range 50% or less in claim 1 or 30% or less in claim 4, Blangero teaches a desirability to prevent the BET surface area from increasing during electrode pressing (in other words, to minimize ΔY) in order to prevent side reactions with the electrolyte (Blangero [0070]). The specific surface area change rate may be reduced by improving the stress resistance and reducing the particle brittleness ([0133], see EX8-EX10, pp. 11 Table 3, Table 5), this improvement having a consequence of reducing the initial capacity QD1 (pp. 11 Table 2).
As such, in seeking to balance considerations preventing side reactions and providing sufficient initial capacity in Chen or modified Chen’s cathode active material, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the specific surface area change rate of Chen’s cathode active material according to considerations taught by Blangero. Given that Chen or modified Chen’s cathode active material is at least appreciably similar to Applicant’s materials exhibiting a ΔY of 12.1% to 29.7% (inst. spec. pp. 24 Table 2), which are within the claimed range of 50% or less in claim 1 and 30% or less in claim 4, a skilled artisan optimizing the specific surface area change rate would reasonably utilize at least a portion of the claimed ranges of ΔY (MPEP 2144.05 II).
While Chen, taken alone or in view of Blangero demonstrates improvements to high-temperature capacity retention rate in the Example 1 material over the Comparative Example 1 material (Chen [0058], FIG. 8) due to eliminating fine powder in the cathode active material ([0057]), Chen fails to provide a cathode active material where a high-temperature capacity retention rate (%) of the lithium secondary battery comprising the cathode active materials is 93% or more as represented by Equation 4 as claimed in claim 1,
[Equation 4] High-temperature capacity retention rate (%) = (200th discharge capacity/Initial discharge capacity)*100
where in Equation 4, the initial discharge capacity is the discharge capacity measured after performing one charge/discharge cycle of the lithium secondary battery, and 200th discharge capacity is the discharge capacity measured at 200th time after performing 200 charge/discharge cycles of the lithium secondary battery at 45°C. Chen FIG. 8 shows the high-temperature capacity retention rate in the Example 1 material at 45 °C (see solid line), which appears to fall below 93% at 80 cycles.
Blangero teaches optimizing a high-temperature capacity retention rate (%) within a range of about 87% (EX10) to 96% (EX8) (see Annotated Blangero FIG. 12, below) through adjustments to the Ni content and Li content of the material ([0133]). EX8, with the highest high-temperature capacity of 96%, additionally comprises the lowest initial discharge capacity (QD1), while EX9 and EX10 having reduced high-temperature capacities conversely have increased initial discharge capacities (pp. 11 Table 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
1183
1752
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Blangero FIG. 12
As such, in seeking to balance considerations of high-temperature capacity retention rate and initial discharge capacity, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the high-temperature capacity retention rate of Chen’s cathode active material within a range of 87% to 96% taught by Blangero (MPEP 2144.05 II),
overlapping with a portion of the range ≥93% claimed in claim 1 between 93% to 96% such that a skilled artisan would have selected within the overlap through routine optimization under Blangero’s teaching
(MPEP 2144.05 II).
Blangero teaches performing this optimization by adjusting the Ni and Li content of the cathode active material composition and would be made with a reasonable expectation of success, as Chen’s cathode active material having the general formula LiaNi1-x-y-z-jCoxMnyAlz MjO2 allows for optimizing Li content within a range of 0.95≤a≤1.25 and Ni content within a range of about 0 to 1.0 (Chen [0027]).
Modified Chen further discloses that X (i.e., (D90-D10)/D50) of the material of Example 1 is 1.16 prior to compression to 4.5 tons ([0056]). Equation 1 (see claim 1) can also be expressed as X4.5t= X*(ΔX% + 1), where, when X=1.16 and ΔX% is 20.3% to 60% in claim 1, a corresponding range of X4.5t must range from 1.40 to 1.86. As such, both X and ΔX in modified Chen’s cathode active material are within the ranges of 1≤X≤2 and 1.4≤X4.5t≤3 claimed in claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, modified Chen discloses the cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein a D50 of the material is 11.2 µm (Chen [0056]), which falls within the claimed range of 8µm≤D50≤15µm. Chen fails to specify a D10 or D90 of the cathode active material, but Chen discloses a D1 of the material is 3.85 µm ([0056]); as a property of percentile values, the value of D10 must be between D1=3.85 μm and D50=11.2 µm, this range overlapping with a portion of the range 3µm≤D10≤6µm claimed in claim 5 between 3.85µm-6µm. Additionally, when D50=11.2µm ([0056]) and 3.85µm≤D10≤6µm (see above), a corresponding value of D90 must range from 16.8µm≤D90≤19.0µm in order for (D90-D10)/D50=1.16 ([0056]), this range falling within the range of 15µm≤D90≤22 µm claimed in claim 5. As such, a skilled artisan seeking to produce modified Chen’s active material where (D90-D10)/D50 = 1.16, D1=3.85 μm and D50=11.2 µm (see Chen [0056]) would have routinely selected within the overlapped portions of D10, D50, and D90 claimed in claim 5 with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Regarding claim 6, modified Chen discloses the cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1. Prior to compression to 4.5 tons, Chen discloses a D50 of the material is 11.2 µm (Chen [0056]), which falls within the claimed range of 8µm≤D50≤15µm. Chen fails to specify a D10 or D90 of the cathode active material, but Chen discloses a D1 of the material is 3.85 µm ([0056]); as a property of percentile values, the value of D10 must be between D1=3.85 μm and D50=11.2 µm. Additionally, when D50=11.2µm ([0056]) and 3.85µm≤D10≤11.2µm (see above), a corresponding value of D90 must range from 16.8µm≤D90≤24.19µm in order for (D90-D10)/D50=1.16 ([0056]).
Chen’s D10, D50, and D90 necessarily decrease by some amount after pressure-treating to 4.5 t/cm2 for 1 minute (demonstrated in Blangero FIGs. 1-2, [0111] showing the decreases in particle size over compression between 100-300 MPA or ~1-3 t/cm2), such that D10, D50, and D90 after pressure-treating must fall within a range of >11.2 µm, >11.2 µm, and >24.19 µm respectively, these ranges encompassing claim 6’s range of D10 = 2 to 4 µm, overlapping with a portion of D50=5 to 14 µm between 5-11.2 µm, and encompassing D90= 14 to 20 µm such that a skilled artisan seeking to produce modified Chen’s cathode active material satisfying Chen’s particle size and size distribution would reasonably produce a material utilizing at least a portion of claim 6’s ranges when pressure-treated to 4.5 t/cm2 for 1 minute (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Regarding claim 7, modified Chen discloses the cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1. Chen does not explicitly indicate a change rate (ΔD50) of the particle size D50 of the cathode active material before and after pressure-treating the cathode active material at 4.5 t/cm2 for 1 minute represented by Equation 3 below as being 50% or less:
[Equation 3] ΔD50(%) = [(D50 measured without pressure-treating the cathode active material - D50 measured after pressure-treating the cathode active material)/D50- measured without pressure-treating the cathode active material] x 100.
However, modified Chen’s cathode active material appears to be substantially, or at least appreciably similar to Applicant’s examples 1 and 2, which comprise ΔD50(%) 13.1% and 21.7% respectively (inst. spec. pp. 22, Table 1), this being appreciably within claim 7’s range of 50% or less. Consequently, a skilled artisan would reasonably expect an inherent ΔD50(%) of modified Chen’s cathode active material to fall within the claimed range of 50% or less.
Regarding claim 8, Chen discloses the cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1. Chen Example 1 comprises the formula Li1.01Ni0.85Co0.10Mn0.05O2 (Chen [0056]). Blangero, relied upon in claim 1 to teach optimization of the Li content and Ni content of the material, uses examples adjusting the Li content between Li0.98 to Li1.0 and a Ni content between Ni0.817 to Ni0.828 (Blangero [0133]). These adjustments are on the order of a few mol%, such that modified Chen’s cathode active material is still approximated by Chen’s Example 1 composition Li1.01Ni0.85Co0.10Mn0.05O2 (Chen [0056]).
Thus, modified Chen’s lithium metal oxide is represented by Formula 1 below:
[Formula 1] LixNiaCobMcOy
wherein, in Formula 1, M is at least one of Al, Zr, Ti, B, Mg, Mn, Ba, Si, Y, W and Sr (M is Mn), 0.9≤x≤1.2 (x is about 1.01), 1.9≤y≤2.1 (y=2), 0.8≤a≤1 (a is about 0.85), 0≤c/(a+b)≤0.13 (c is about 0.05, b is about 0.10, this term evaluating to about 0.052), 0≤c≤0.11 (c is about 0.05), and a+b+c=1, where modified Chen’s lithium metal oxide falls within the claim 8’s range of compositions (Chen [0056]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Chen discloses forming a lithium secondary battery (“coin cell”) comprising a cathode which comprises the cathode active material according to claim 1 (Chen [0058]). Chen’s lithium secondary battery undergoes charge-discharge cycling during testing ([0058]), which necessitates some form of anode disposed to face the cathode as a counterpart to the cathode.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejection of claim(s) 1 and 4-9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Malcus et al. US20090314985A1 (cited in office action filed 09/20/2024), in view of Lim et al. US20220135428A1 (cited in office action filed 06/11/2025), and Oda et al. JP5109423B2 (cited with machine translation in office action filed 06/11/2025), and as evidenced by Kim et al. US20210005877A1 (see Remarks filed 01/15/2026) 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVERETT T CHOI whose telephone number is (703)756-1331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11:00-8:00.
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, Jonathan G Leong can be reached on (571) 270 1292. 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.
/E.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/Haroon S. Sheikh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
Prosecution Insights