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
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 2/2/2026. Claim 8 is canceled. Claims 1-4, 7, 19, 11-20 are pending. Claims 1-18 are withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to a non-elected invention, in accordance with 37 CFR 1.142(b). Claim 1 and 11 have been amended. Applicant’s arguments have been considered. Claims 1-4, 7, 9, 19, 20 are finally rejected for reasons of record stated herein below.
Claims Analysis
The instant Specification defines the term “single particle shape”:
[0059] The term "single particle shape" is not intended to exclude a monolithic shape in which, e.g., 2o 10 particles of the single particle shape are attached or adjacent to each other.
The Examiner notes that the term “single particle shape” does not necessarily mean a particle consisting of a single particle or a particle consisting of a primary particle.
As defined by the Applicants, it is noted that the definition of the term “single particle shape” includes an agglomeration of 2-10 particles.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7-9, 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 2020/0161650, referred to as “Park ‘650” herein) in view of Park (WO 2019/221497, using US 2021/0135187 as translation, referred to as “Park ‘187” herein).
Regarding claim 1, Park ‘650 discloses a cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery, comprising:
a lithium-transition metal composite oxide particle having a single particle shape; and
a first coating layer formed on a surface of the lithium-transition metal composite oxide particle,
an average particle diameter (D50) of the lithium-transition metal composite oxide particle is less than 3.0 um [0027].
Regarding claim 1, the first coating layer comprising a Sr-Zr-O compound, Park ‘650 discloses the coating is made of at least one element M selected from the group consisting of Al, Ti, Mg, Zr, Y, Sr, and B [0045]. The active material precursor is mixed with M, and excessive calcination process is performed under oxidation atmosphere [0070, 0083]. Given the limited number of M elements and the excessive calcination process performed under oxidation atmosphere, it is reasonable to conclude the formation of a coating layer comprising a Sr-Zr-O compound.
Should it not be anticipatory, Park ‘650 discloses the element M promotes the growth of the primary particles of the positive electrode active material [0080]. The element M includes Al, Ti, Mg, Zr, Y, Sr, and B [0045]. Park ‘187 teaches a positive active material comprising lithium transition metal oxide. Its precursor undergoes a secondary sintering and may be performed after further mixing a particle growth promoter including at least one particle growth-promoting element selected from the group consisting of Sr, Zr, Mg, Y, and Al, and more preferably, a particle growth promoter including a particle growth-promoting element of Sr and/or Zr may be further mixed. The particle growth promoter may be mixed such that the particle growth-promoting element may be included in an amount of 500 ppm to 2,000 ppm, preferably 800 ppm to 1,800 ppm, and more preferably 1,000 ppm to 1,500 ppm based on the total weight of the positive electrode active material. Since the particle growth promoter is further mixed within the above range, the single particle of the positive electrode active material may be easily formed despite the lithium composite transition metal oxide having a composition including 65 mol % or more of nickel (Ni) and 5 mol % or more of manganese (Mn) [0065]. It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to add Sr and Zr as the M of Park ‘650, as taught by Park ‘187, for the benefit of having good growth of the particles of Park ‘650.
Regarding claim 3, the Sr-Zr-O compound is derived from a first melting agent containing strontium and a second melting agent containing zirconium, and regarding claim 4, the first melting agent comprises Sr(OH)2 or a hydrate of Sr(OH)2, and the second melting agent comprises [[Zr(OH)2]]Zr(OH)4 or a hydrate of [[Zr(OH)2]|Zr(OH)4, it has been considered but was not given patentable weight because the courts have held that the method of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself. “[Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from the product of prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 7, the Sr-Zr-O compound is doped or coated with a metal, and the metal is at least one of Mg, Ca, Al, Ti, W, Ta and Nb, Park ‘650 discloses the coating can further include Al, Ti, Mg, Y, and B [0045].
Regarding claim 9, a Sr peak is observed at 133.6 eV and a Zr peak is observed at 182.8 eV when the surface of the lithium-transition metal composite oxide particle is measured by an X-ray photoelectron spectrometer (XPS) analysis, and regarding claim 20, the Sr-Zr-O compound comprises a perovskite structure, these limitations are properties that are naturally possessed by the chemical structure of Sr-Zr-O, and hence is met by Park ‘650 modified by Park ‘187. A reference which is silent about a claimed invention's features is inherently anticipatory if the missing feature is necessarily present in that which is described in the reference. In re Robertson, 49 USPQ2d 1949 (1999).
Regarding claim 1, a crystallite size of the lithium-transition metal composite oxide particle measured by an XRD analysis is in a range from 300 nm to 500 nm, Park ‘650 discloses that excellent capacity characteristics of the battery may be exhibited as the crystal grains in the primary particle have an average crystallite size within the range 180 nm to 400 nm [0033]. In a case where the average crystallite size of the primary particles is less than 180 nm, it is difficult for the primary particle to have a perfect shape as a single particle. As a result, an interfacial area between the positive electrode active material and the electrolyte becomes large and a loss of contact between the primary particles may occur due to a volume change during charging and discharging. In addition, in a case where the average crystallite size of the primary particles exceeds 400 nm, capacity of the battery may be deteriorated due to an excessive increase of resistance [0034]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the crystallite size of Park ‘650 modified by Park ‘187, for the benefit of having good interfacial area between the positive electrode active material and the electrolyte, as well as avoiding an excessive increase of resistance.
Regarding the crystallite size is calculated by Equation 1, Park ‘650 discloses the average crystallite size of the primary particles is quantitatively analyzed by diffraction patterns obtained by irradiation of the particles with X-ray [0033]. Since Equation 1 also uses X-ray data, it appears that the crystallize size of Park ‘650 would be similar to the method as used by Applicants.
Regarding claim 19, Park ‘650 modified by Park ‘187 teaches a lithium secondary battery comprising:
a cathode comprising a cathode active material layer that comprises the cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery of claim 1; and
an anode facing the cathode.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being unpatentable over Park (US 2020/0161650, referred to as “Park ‘650” herein) in view of Park (WO 2019/221497, using US 2021/0135187 as translation, referred to as “Park ‘187” herein) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Gao (CN 109786681).
Regarding claim 2, Park ‘650 modified by Park ‘187 does not disclose further comprising a second coating layer formed on a surface of the first coating layer, the second coating layer comprising a Li-B-O compound. Gao teaches a positive active material having a coating made of In2O3 and Li2B4O7 [0010]. Among the above-mentioned lithium-ion battery positive electrode materials, the nano In2O3 is a new n-type transparent semiconductor functional material with a wider bandgap and a smaller resistivity. Compared with other inert coating materials such as aluminum oxide, indium oxide has better electronic conductivity. At the same time, after coating with indium oxide, the bond energy of the In-O bond is larger than that of the metal and oxygen on the surface of the positive electrode material, which improves the stability of the coated positive electrode material under high temperature conditions and weakens the effect of some Li-O bonds. Therefore, the lithium-ion battery using the positive electrode material provided by this application has significantly improved cycle performance and safety performance at high temperature and high voltage [0011]. In the above-mentioned lithium-ion battery positive electrode material, the Li2B4O7 crystal structure has an I41cd space group, and the three-dimensional network composed of [BO3] triangles and [BO4] tetrahedrons can form lithium-ion channels. Compared with ordinary oxides, it has better Li+ passing performance, which is not only beneficial to the improvement of cycle performance and the exertion of rate performance, but also has little effect on the deintercalation of Li+, and can maintain electrochemical inertness in a wider voltage range, and has good stability in organic electrolytes [0012].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to add the coating of Gao to the active material of Park ‘650 modified by Park ‘187, as taught by Gao, for the benefit of having good stability and forming good lithium conduction channels.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7-9, 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (WO 2019/221497, using US 2021/0135187 as translation, referred to as “Park ‘187” herein) in view of Park (US 2020/0161650, referred to as “Park ‘650” herein).
Regarding claim 1, Park ‘187 discloses a cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery, comprising:
a lithium-transition metal composite oxide particle having a single particle shape [0025],
the first coating layer comprising a Sr-Zr-O compound [0066].
Regarding claim 1, a first coating layer formed on a surface of the lithium-transition metal composite oxide particle, Park ‘187 discloses the sintering may be performed after further mixing a particle growth promoter including at least one particle growth-promoting element selected from the group consisting of Sr, Zr, Mg, Y, and Al, and more preferably, a particle growth promoter including a particle growth-promoting element of Sr and/or Zr may be further mixed. The particle growth promoter may be mixed such that the particle growth-promoting element may be included in an amount of 500 ppm to 2,000 ppm [0066]. It is noted that a coating of the growth promoter is present on the surface of particles of Park ‘187.
Regarding claim 1, an average particle diameter (D50) of the lithium-transition metal composite oxide particle is less than 3.0 um, Park ‘187 discloses the primary particle may have an average particle diameter (D.sub.5O) of 2 μm to 10 μm [0026]. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 3, the Sr-Zr-O compound is derived from a first melting agent containing strontium and a second melting agent containing zirconium, and regarding claim 4, the first melting agent comprises Sr(OH)2 or a hydrate of Sr(OH)2, and the second melting agent comprises [[Zr(OH)2]]Zr(OH)4 or a hydrate of [[Zr(OH)2]|Zr(OH)4, it has been considered but was not given patentable weight because the courts have held that the method of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself. “[Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from the product of prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 7, the Sr-Zr-O compound is doped or coated with a metal, and the metal is at least one of Mg, Ca, Al, Ti, W, Ta and Nb [0071].
Regarding claim 9, a Sr peak is observed at 133.6 eV and a Zr peak is observed at 182.8 eV when the surface of the lithium-transition metal composite oxide particle is measured by an X-ray photoelectron spectrometer (XPS) analysis, and regarding claim 20, the Sr-Zr-O compound comprises a perovskite structure, these limitations are properties that are naturally possessed by the chemical structure of Sr-Zr-O, and hence is met by Park ‘187. A reference which is silent about a claimed invention's features is inherently anticipatory if the missing feature is necessarily present in that which is described in the reference. In re Robertson, 49 USPQ2d 1949 (1999).
Regarding claim 1, a crystallite size of the lithium-transition metal composite oxide particle measured by an XRD analysis is in a range from 300 nm to 500 nm, Park discloses the crystallite size is 220 nm or more. The positive electrode active material satisfying the above crystallite size according to an embodiment of the present invention may suppress the particle breakage caused by rolling, and life characteristics and stability may be improved [0028]. Park ‘650 teaches that excellent capacity characteristics of the battery may be exhibited as the crystal grains in lithium transition metal oxide primary particles have an average crystallite size within the range 180 nm to 400 nm [0033]. In a case where the average crystallite size of the primary particles is less than 180 nm, it is difficult for the primary particle to have a perfect shape as a single particle. As a result, an interfacial area between the positive electrode active material and the electrolyte becomes large and a loss of contact between the primary particles may occur due to a volume change during charging and discharging. In addition, in a case where the average crystallite size of the primary particles exceeds 400 nm, capacity of the battery may be deteriorated due to an excessive increase of resistance [0034]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the crystallite size of Park ‘187 to below 400 nm, as taught by Park ‘650, for the benefit of avoiding an excessive increase of resistance.
Regarding claim 19, Park ‘187 modified by Park ‘650 teaches a lithium secondary battery comprising:
a cathode comprising a cathode active material layer that comprises the cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery of claim 1; and
an anode facing the cathode.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being unpatentable over Park (WO 2019/221497, using US 2021/0135187 as translation, referred to as “Park ‘187” herein) in view of Park (US 2020/0161650, referred to as “Park ‘650” herein) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Gao (CN 109786681).
Regarding claim 2, Park ‘187 modified by Park ‘650 does not disclose further comprising a second coating layer formed on a surface of the first coating layer, the second coating layer comprising a Li-B-O compound. Gao teaches a positive active material having a coating made of In2O3 and Li2B4O7 [0010]. Among the above-mentioned lithium-ion battery positive electrode materials, the nano In2O3 is a new n-type transparent semiconductor functional material with a wider bandgap and a smaller resistivity. Compared with other inert coating materials such as aluminum oxide, indium oxide has better electronic conductivity. At the same time, after coating with indium oxide, the bond energy of the In-O bond is larger than that of the metal and oxygen on the surface of the positive electrode material, which improves the stability of the coated positive electrode material under high temperature conditions and weakens the effect of some Li-O bonds. Therefore, the lithium-ion battery using the positive electrode material provided by this application has significantly improved cycle performance and safety performance at high temperature and high voltage [0011]. In the above-mentioned lithium-ion battery positive electrode material, the Li2B4O7 crystal structure has an I41cd space group, and the three-dimensional network composed of [BO3] triangles and [BO4] tetrahedrons can form lithium-ion channels. Compared with ordinary oxides, it has better Li+ passing performance, which is not only beneficial to the improvement of cycle performance and the exertion of rate performance, but also has little effect on the deintercalation of Li+, and can maintain electrochemical inertness in a wider voltage range, and has good stability in organic electrolytes [0012].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to add the coating of Gao to the active material of Park ‘187 modified by Park ‘650, as taught by Gao, for the benefit of having good stability and forming good lithium conduction channels.
Response to Arguments
Arguments filed 8/20/2026 are addressed below:
Applicant argues the cathode active material of amended independent claim 1 consists of a single particle shape in which the lithium-transition metal composite oxide is not agglomerated. Therefore, its morphology is entirely different from the secondary particle of Park '650, which is formed by the dense aggregation of a plurality of primary particles. As can be seen in FIG. 8 as- filed (reproduced below), while the Examples maintain the single particle shape (FIGS. 8(a) and (b)), the Comparative Examples form secondary particles having a polycrystalline structure (FIGS. 8(c) and (d)). Due to this, clear differences are exhibited not only in the crystallinity of the particles but also in the overall physical properties such as the manufacturing process and specific surface area (Page 8 of Arguments).
In response, Applicants are reminded that claim 1 claim language includes “consisting of a single particle shape” (emphasis added), and not necessarily a particle in the form of a single particle. The Applicant is further reminded that instant Specification defines the term “single particle shape”:
[0059] The term "single particle shape" is not intended to exclude a monolithic shape in which, e.g., 2o 10 particles of the single particle shape are attached or adjacent to each other.
The Examiner notes that the term “single particle shape” does not necessarily mean a particle consisting of a single particle or a particle consisting of a primary particle.
As defined by the Applicants, it is noted that the definition of the term “single particle shape” includes an agglomeration of 2-10 particles.
Park '650 explicitly defines the subject matter of the invention in claim 1 as a secondary particle formed by agglomerating a plurality of polycrystalline primary particles. In particular, referring to FIG. 9 of Park '650 (reproduced below), a typical secondary particle shape in which numerous fine primary particles are densely agglomerated to form a single large mass is visually clearly revealed (page 11 of Arguments). That is, the technical concept disclosed in Park '650 is the secondary particle itself, not an independent primary particle, and the primary particle of Park '650 is merely a subordinate internal element of the secondary particle that cannot exist alone. This can be clearly understood from paragraph [0168] of Park '650 (reproduced in part below) which states that:
[i]t was confirmed from the results as shown in FIGS. 9 and 10 together
with Table 4 that each of the particle sizes of the secondary particles
excessively calcined [sic] at 960° C. or more in Example 1 and 4 was almost
the same as the particle size of the secondary particle excessively calcined
[sic] at 950° C. or less in Comparative Example 6. However, each of the
average crystallite sizes of primary particles constituting the secondary
particle in Example 1 and 4 was significantly increased in comparison to
Comparative Example 6.
Meanwhile, Park '187 discloses a cathode active material having a single particle shape. However, since the technical concept of Park '650 presupposes that the cathode active material is a secondary particle as an essential configuration, assuming that the cathode active material of Park '650 is a single particle is not obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (page 12 of Arguments).
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner notes that the combination does not entail combining the secondary structure of Park ‘650 with the primary particle of Park ‘187, but the coating structure.
Further, Applicants are reminded that claim 1 claim language includes “consisting of a single particle shape” (emphasis added), and not necessarily a particle in the form of a single particle. Applicant is further reminded that instant Specification defines the term “single particle shape”:
[0059] The term "single particle shape" is not intended to exclude a monolithic shape in which, e.g., 2o 10 particles of the single particle shape are attached or adjacent to each other.
The Examiner notes that the term “single particle shape” does not necessarily mean a particle consisting of a single particle or a particle consisting of a primary particle.
As defined by the Applicants, it is noted that the definition of the term “single particle shape” includes an agglomeration of 2-10 particles.
Applicant asserts Park '187 explicitly teaches away from secondary particles in paragraph [0006] (reproduced in part below) by stating:
[h]owever, since a conventional NCM-based lithium composite transition
metal oxide is generally in the form of a secondary particle in which primary
particles are aggregated, its specific surface area is large, particle strength
is low, and an amount of lithium by-product is large, and thus, there is a
limitation in that an amount of gas generated during cell operation is large
and stability is poor (Emphasis Added)
and discloses the preparation of a cathode active material having a single particle shape in claim 5, which is an independent method claim.
That is, Park '650 aims to manufacture a cathode active material in the form of a secondary particle, whereas Park '187 aims to manufacture a cathode active material in the form of a single particle while providing a negative teaching regarding the cathode active material in the form of a secondary particle (Page 13 of Arguments).
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner notes that the combination does not entail combining the secondary structure of Park ‘650 with the primary particle of Park ‘187, but the coating structure.
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 CYNTHIA KYUNG SOO WALLS whose telephone number is (571)272-8699. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F until 5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jonathan Leong can be reached at 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CYNTHIA K WALLS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
Prosecution Insights