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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/2/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 2/2/2026. Claims 5 and 6 are canceled and claim 20 is new. Claims 1-4, 7-9, 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 Claims 1-18 are withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to a non-elected invention, in accordance with 37 CFR 1.142(b).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 non-finally rejected for reasons of record stated herein below.
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 8, the single particle shape includes a monolithic shape in which 2 to 10 single particles are attached or adjacent to each other, Park ‘650 discloses the positive electrode active material is the secondary particle, and a particle size D50 of the secondary particle is 10 to 16 μm, and more specifically, may be 12 to 16 μm. As described above, the secondary particle has a larger D50 in comparison to the related art, such that the excellent battery performance improvement effect may be exhibited without increase of resistance. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the number of single particles in the secondary particle of Park ‘650 depending on the desired size of the secondary particle for the benefit of having good battery performance.
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.
Response to Arguments
Arguments filed 2/2/2026 are addressed below:
Applicant asserts the present invention achieves a crystallite size of 300 nm to 500 nm and an average particle diameter (D50) of less than 3.0 µm, thereby allowing the formation of the single particle shape while simultaneously preventing the degradation of durability and the occurrence of cracks in the cathode active material caused by an excessively small particle size. For example, Examples 1 to 4, which satisfy both parameters, exhibit an optimized cation mixing ratio, superior initial charge efficiency, and excellent capacity retention. In contrast, Examples 5 to 8, which fall outside these claimed ranges, show a significant deterioration in these electrochemical properties. Page 8-10 of Arguments.
In response, it appears that Table 1 and 2 show that the Applicant’s assertion of superior initial charge efficiency, and excellent capacity retention depend on multiple variables in addition to the claimed crystallite size and the particle diameter, such as input of melting agent, Mg doping, the firing temperature, and Sr amount. Hence, Applicant’s argument to the significance of the crystallite size and the particle diameter is not persuasive.
Applicant asserts the cathode active material of the present invention has a "single particle shape" in which lithium-transition metal composite oxide particles are not agglomerated, and thus its morphology is entirely different from the "secondary particle" structure of Park '650, which is formed by the dense aggregation of a plurality of primary particles. That is, the technical entity disclosed in Park '650 is the "secondary particle" itself, not an independent "primary particle". Page 10-11 of Arguments.
In response, the Examiner notes that the Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claims.
Applicant asserts the crystallite size data disclosed in Park '650 pertains to the subordinate primary particles that constitute the interior of a secondary particle; therefore, it cannot be compared on an equal footing with the data of the single particle of the present invention, which exists as an independent physical entity. Page 12 of Arguments.
In response, Applicant’s argument is without evidentiary support. Park ‘650 states:
[0033] In the present invention, the term “polycrystal” refers to a crystalline body composed of two or more crystal grains. An average crystallite size of the crystal grains is in a range of 180 to 400 nm, more specifically, in a range of 180 to 300 nm, and more specifically, in a range of 180 to 250 nm. In this case, an average crystallite size of the primary particles may be quantitatively analyzed by using X-ray diffraction analysis (XRD). In detail, the average crystallite size of the primary particles may be quantitatively analyzed by putting the primary particles in a holder and analyzing diffraction patterns obtained by irradiation of the particles with X-ray (Cu-Kα X-ray). (emphasis added)
The crystalline size of Park ‘540 is measured as an average crystallite size. Hence, the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
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