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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/01/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment and arguments filed 07/01/2026 have been fully considered. Claim(s) 1 is/are amended; claim(s) 10-12 remain withdrawn; and claim(s) 3-5 has/have been canceled. Examiner affirms that the original disclosure provides adequate support for the amendment.
Upon considering said amendment and arguments, the previous rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 set forth in the Office action mailed 04/03/2026 has/have been withdrawn.
New grounds of rejection are presented hereinbelow.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 has been objected to for failing to accurately depict the changes made.
Claim 1 has been amended as follows (see filed 07/01/2026):
PNG
media_image1.png
533
958
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the emphasized limitation of the previously filed claims (filed 01/23/2026, see below) appears to have been deleted instead of being struck-through to indicate the limitation is removed in the most recently filed set of claims.
PNG
media_image2.png
506
955
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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, 6, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiratsuka et al. (JP2007234277A; machine translation with 04/03/2026 Office action) in view of Chu et al. (CN111554930A; machine translation with 04/03/2026 Office action).
Regarding claims 1, 13, Hiratsuka discloses a cathode (“positive electrode”) as claimed in claim 13 comprising a cathode active material (“positive electrode active material”) for a lithium secondary battery (Machine translation, Hiratsuka [0027]) as claimed in claim 1, comprising a lithium metal oxide particle core part (“lithium-containing composite oxide”, “aggregate”) ([0015]); and
a plurality of particles of water-soluble polymer (13, “water-soluble polymer binder”) adhering and covering all of (thus, “at least a portion of”) primary particles (12) forming secondary particles (9) constituting the lithium metal oxide particle core parts (“aggregates”) ([0015], [0040], FIG. 1), the plurality of particles of water-soluble polymer (13) thus being recognized as the water-soluble polymer coating layer (see annotation) configured to cover at least a portion of the core part as claimed in claim 1, wherein the core part comprises a lithium metal oxide secondary particle (9), and the water-soluble polymer (13) is distributed at a boundary between lithium metal oxide primary particles (12), wherein the water-soluble polymer (13) is bonded between the lithium metal oxide primary particles (12) to form the secondary particle structure (9) as claimed in claim 1 (see Annotated Hiratsuka FIG. 1 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
630
1212
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Hiratsuka FIG. 1
To form the secondary particles (9), Hiratsuka mixes the primary particles (12) with the water-soluble polymer (13) dispersed in water ([0029]), and shows carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) as a particularly desirable water-soluble polymer due to its impregnation properties and binding powder ([0019], [0055]). While Hiratsuka’s disclosure would not necessarily appear limited to CMC so long as the polymer is water-soluble and has sufficient impregnation and binding properties ([0019]), Hiratsuka fails to explicitly disclose the use of a water-soluble polymer comprising poly(diallyldimethylammonium chloride) (PDDA) as claimed in claim 1.
Chu (CN111554930A) is directed to an adhesive water-soluble polymer (“adhesive”, “binder”, Chu [0020-0021]; [0051,0055] showing the water solubility) suitable in a cathode ([0082-0085]), the water-soluble polymer comprising a copolymer of a hydrophilic/hydrophobic copolymer and a water-soluble cellulose ([0010-0011]). The polymer has improved adhesion and tensile performance compared to conventional water-soluble cellulose (e.g., carboxymethyl cellulose) ([0008] [0020-0021]) as well as improved dispersibility and suspension stability ([0049]).
Thus, in seeking to suitably provide or improve the adhesion and tensile properties (i.e., binding power) and dispersibility of the water-soluble polymer in Hiratsuka’s cathode active material, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art to select Chu’s water-soluble polymer (copolymer of a hydrophilic/hydrophobic copolymer and a water-soluble cellulose) for use as Hiratsuka’s water-soluble polymer, with a reasonable expectation of success as Chu teaches the water-soluble polymer as being a direct improvement to conventional water-soluble cellulose (e.g., CMC) in these properties (Chu [0008] [0020-0021]) for which Hiratsuka suggests the use of CMC (Hiratsuka [0019], [0055]) (MPEP 2144.07).
Chu further teaches a finite list of hydrophilic comonomers including dimethyl diallyl ammonium chloride (i.e., the monomer of PDDA), (meth)acrylic acid (sodium), fumaric acid, itaconic acid, (meth)acrylamide, N-hydroxymethylacrylamide, N,N-dimethylacrylamide, sodium p-styrene sulfonate, sodium vinyl sulfonate, sodium allyl sulfonate, sodium 2-methylallyl sulfonate, sodium ethyl methacrylate sulfonate, or hydroxyethyl acrylate ([0043]), which improve the dispersion stability and solubility of Chu’s water-soluble polymer ([0030]).
Thus, as Chu teaches a finite set of hydrophilic comonomers as a family of compounds which improve the dispersion stability and solubility of Chu’s water-soluble polymer, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to explore selecting dimethyl diallyl ammonium chloride (thus forming the copolymer comprising PDDA) as a known hydrophilic comonomer with a reasonable expectation that such a selection would successfully provide the necessary dispersion stability and solubility (MPEP 2143 I. E), and thereby forming the water-soluble polymer comprising poly(diallyldimethylammonium chloride) as claimed in claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, modified Hiratsuka discloses the cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the lithium metal oxide particle comprises a lithium nickel-based metal oxide having the formula LiNi1-x-yCoxMnyO2, a specific named example of the lithium nickel-based metal oxide being LiNiO2 ([0003]), wherein in Formula 1:
[Formula 1] LixNiyM1-yO2
x=1 and y=1, within the claimed ranges of 0.9<x<1.2, y≥0.5, and where M is not positively recited when y=1.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiratsuka (JP2007234277A) in view of Chu (CN111554930A) as applied to claim 6, further in view of Hou et al. ("Surface/Interfacial Structure and Chemistry of High-Energy Nickel-Rich Layered Oxide Cathodes: Advances and Perspectives"; copy with 04/03/2026 Office action).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, modified Hiratsuka discloses the cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 6 where the lithium metal oxide particle comprises a lithium nickel-based metal oxide represented by the general formula LiNi1-x-yCoxMnyO2, a specific named example of the lithium nickel-based metal oxide being LiNiO2 (Hiratsuka [0003]). Hiratsuka further discloses an experimental embodiment using LiNi1/3Co1/3Mn1/3O2 ([0055]). A range of compositions between these two examples (LixNiyM1-yO2; see claim 6, where x=1 and 0.33≤y≤1) encompasses 0.6≤y≤0.93 as claimed in claim 7, and where M includes Co and Mn as claimed in claim 8, such that a skilled artisan could have routinely selected within the overlap through combining equivalent positive electrode active materials disclosed by Hiratsuka with a reasonable expectation of successfully producing Hiratsuka’s cathode active material (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Assuming arguendo that Applicant proves a skilled artisan would not necessarily have selected a composition of Formula 1 (LixNiyM1-yO2) where 0.6≤y≤0.93 and where M includes Co and Mn from Hiratsuka’s disclosure, Hou, a study of lithium nickel-based metal oxides (Hou, abstract), teaches that the proportions of Ni, Co, and Mn in a nickel-based metal oxide have corresponding effects on the active material’s capacity, rate capability and safety/stability, respectively (Hou P15 FIG. 13).
As such, in seeking to balance improving the material capacity with Ni while providing sufficient rate capability and safety from Co and Mn, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the proportion y of Ni within the range of 0.33≤y≤1 disclosed by modified Hiratsuka according to Hou’s teachings, and in doing so, arrive at the range 0.6≤y≤0.93 as claimed in claim 7 where M includes Co and Mn as claimed in claim 8 through routine optimization with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Regarding claim 9, modified Hiratsuka discloses the cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 6. While Hiratsuka desires to improve the cycle characteristics and lifetime of a battery with the cathode (Hiratsuka [0016]), Hiratsuka fails to disclose the use of lithium metal oxide particles comprising a doping or coating including at least one of Al, Zr and Ti for this purpose
Hou, a study of lithium nickel-based metal oxides (Hou, abstract), teaches doping metal oxides with Al and Ti to improve the structural and thermal stability and the lifespan of the active material (P17/C1/¶2).
As such, in seeking to improve the structural and thermal stability and the lifespan of Hiratsuka’s cathode active material, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to dope Hiratsuka’s lithium metal oxide particles with at least one of Al or Ti as taught by Hou. Such a modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success, as Hou teaches a compatibility of the doping process with lithium nickel-based metal oxides such as Hiratsuka’s cathode active material.
Response to Arguments
Claim 1 has been amended to positively recite that the water-soluble polymer comprises poly(diallyldimethylammonium chloride) (PDDA). Claim 1 has also been amended to no longer specify that water-soluble polymer comprises at least one of a cationic polymer (polycation) and an anionic polymer (polyanion) (see §Claim Objections in this Office action). In the previous rejection filed 04/03/2026, CMC as the water-soluble polymer disclosed by Hiratsuka was relied upon to anticipate selection of an anionic polymer where the cationic polymer in claim 1 (and PDDA in cancelled claim 4) was not positively recited.
Applicant asserts that the previously cited combination of references (Hiratsuka, Chu, Celotech “Carboxymethyl Cellulose: Overview and Applications”) fails to disclose a cathode active material where the water-soluble polymer comprises poly(diallyldimethylammonium chloride) (Remarks p. 6). Hiratsuka and Celotech were not relied upon to teach or disclose the use of PDDA; Chu discloses a polymer being a copolymer of a starch-graft modified hydrophilic comonomer and a hydrophobic comonomer (Chu [0012]) which requires the inclusion of a hydrophobic comonomer and starch-graft modified polymer in addition to the hydrophilic comonomer (e.g., PDDA) (Remarks p. 7). In comparison, Applicant’s cathode active material is prepared by adding PDDA to a cleaning solution, and the PDDA utilized by Applicant is a water-soluble polymer polymerized exclusively from diallydimethylammonium chloride.
This argument has been respectfully considered but is not found persuasive; claim 1 recites inter alia “…the water-soluble polymer comprises poly(diallyldimethylammonium chloride)”. The transitional phrase “comprising” is open-ended and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the water-soluble polymer comprising PDDA does not exclude additional, unrecited components of the water-soluble polymer such as Chu’s hydrophobic comonomer and starch-graft modified polymer (MPEP 2111.03). Furthermore, although Chu’s water-soluble (co)polymer comprises a hydrophobic comonomer, Chu’s copolymer (“adhesive”) as a whole is noted as using water as a solvent, i.e., is water-soluble (Chu [0051], [0055]). Moreover, the hydrophilic/hydrophobic comonomer component of Chu’s copolymer comprises a majority hydrophilic monomers (“repeating units”) in order to avoid precipitation, i.e., insolubility in water (Chu [0030]).
For the above reasons, although Examiner acknowledges the differences identified by Applicant between the prior art water-soluble (co)polymer comprising PDDA and Applicant’s water-soluble polymer consisting of PDDA as argued (but not claimed), the rejection of record still holds that Chu’s prior art water-soluble (co)polymer still reads on the “water-soluble polymer comprises poly(diallyldimethylammonium chloride)” of claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cho et al. (WO2019235733A1 cited in 09/02/2022 IDS, US20210075005A1 cited as U.S. equivalent) discloses a cathode active material comprising a lithium metal oxide particle core part and a layer of PDDA as a water-soluble polymer coating layer ([0012, 0040]), but does not disclose a water-soluble polymer bonded between the lithium transition metal oxide primary particles to form a secondary particle structure as claimed in claim 1.
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
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 8/17/2026
Prosecution Insights