DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 Nov. 19, 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 3-19 are pending, wherein claim 1 is amended and claims 11-18 are withdrawn. Claims 1, 3-10 and 19 are being examined on the merits in this office action.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been entered. A reply to the Applicant’s remarks/arguments is presented after addressing the claims.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office Action and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments or/and arguments.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. References cited in the current Office action can be found in a prior Office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on Aug. 20 and Oct. 17, 2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1, 3-10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claim amendment “the single particle shape excludes a secondary particle structure in which 50 or more of primary particles are assembled or aggregated” in claim 1 is not fully consistent with the scope of the invention as originally filed, which renders the scope of the claims unascertainable.
According to paragraphs [0058]-[0062] of the instant specification, it appears that particles having a secondary particle structure in which greater than 10 or more of primary particles are assembled or aggregated are not regarded as having “a single particle shape”.
A question is raised: is a secondary particle structure having greater than 10 and less than 50 of primary particles considered by the Applicant “a single particle shape” or “not a single particle shape”?
The numbers, such as “2 to 10”, “greater than 10”, etc., of primary particles presented in paragraphs [0059]-[0060] are merely examples (See “e.g.” in the paragraphs). The specification essentially never defines the term “a single particle shape”.
In addition, in [0060], how to understand “2 to 10 particles of the single particle shape are attached or adjacent to each other”? Does the Applicant intend to state 2 to 10 particles of primary particles …?
Overall, the definition of “a single particle shape” as claimed is unclear, rendering the claim(s) indefinite. For purposes of examination, see below for how the amended limitations are addressed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 8-10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al. (“Boosting cell performance of LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 cathode material via structure design”, Journal of Energy Chemistry, 2021, 55, 114-123., hereafter referred to as Tang) in view of Kwak et al. (US 20220246921 A1, hereafter Kwak) and Park et al. (US 20180261842 A1, hereafter Park).
Regarding claims 1, 6 and 8, Tang teaches a cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery (See, at least, Title), comprising:
a lithium-transition metal composite oxide (e.g, LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2, Abstract) particle having a single particle shape (A composite oxide particle necessarily has a single particle shape); and a first coating layer (La2Zr2O7 coating, Abstract) formed on a surface of the lithium-transition metal composite oxide particle (See Abstract), the first coating layer comprising a La-Zr-O compound (La2Zr2O7 is a La-Zr-O compound).
Tang is silent as to a second coating layer comprising a Li-B-O compound that is formed on a surface of the first coating layer.
In the same field of endeavor, however, Kwak discloses a composite coating layer is formed on a surface of a lithium-transition metal composite oxide, wherein the composite coating layer comprises a ferroelectric material and a boron-based oxide ([0026]). The application of the boron-based oxide layer (e.g., a layer of a Li-B-O compound, [0035]) can secure high capacity and improve long-term lifetime characteristics (a capacity retention rate and a resistance increase rate) ([0035]). Note that the composite coating layer on the surface of the lithium-transition metal composite oxide can be formed by a process involving mixing a ferroelectric material and a boron-based oxide, or by a process involving a separate coating of the boron-based oxide ([0038], Kwak).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have incorporated the teachings of Kwak into Tang such that a second coating layer comprising a Li-B-O compound is formed on a surface of the first coating layer of Tang in order to secure high and improve long-term lifetime characteristics (a capacity retention rate and a resistance increase rate).
As to the newly added limitation “the single particle shape excludes a secondary particle structure in which 50 or more of primary particles are assembled or aggregated”, one of ordinary skill in the art (particularly in chemistry field) would readily appreciate that the number of primary particles to be assembled or aggregated into particles having a single particles shape can be routinely achieved by adjusting various conditions (e.g., concentration, temperature, stirring speed, etc.) during the synthesis of La2Zr2O7 coated lithium-transition metal composite oxide (“2. Experimental”, page 115). The claimed limitation would have been readily arrived at by one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentations since it involves merely ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
Tang in view of Kwak is silent as to an average particle diameter, D50, of the lithium-transition metal composite oxide particle.
In the same field of endeavor, however, Park discloses that an average particle size of 2 µm to 8 µm would benefit for reversibility of charge/discharge and efficiency and capacity of a battery ([0048]-[0049]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have incorporated the teachings of Park into Tang in view of Kwak such that an average particle diameter, D50, of the lithium-transition metal composite oxide is in a range of 2 µm to 8 µm in order to achieve advantages stated above. The claimed ranges of 2.0 µm or more (claim 1) and less than 3.0 µm (claim 6) overlap that of 2 µm to 8 µm, respectively. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
As to claim 8, Tang teaches m 1, wherein the cathode active material includes a monolithic shape in which 2 to 10 the lithium-transition metal composite oxide particles are attached or adjacent to each other (See Fig. 8). In addition, Park also teaches a monolithic structure (at least [0025]).
Regarding claims 3-4, Tang as modified teaches the cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery of claim 1. The limitations recited in claims 3-4 represent a process of preparing the La-Zr-O compound. However, even though a product-by-process claim is 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 a product of the 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). In the instant case, Tang already teaches the La-O-Zr compound as claimed, and thus teaches the invention as claimed in claims 3-4.
Regarding claim 9, Tang as modified teaches the cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery of claim 1, and the instantly claimed limitation represents characteristics or properties of the cathode active material. Since Tang as modified teaches the same cathode active material as claimed, the claimed characteristics or properties are necessarily present.
Regarding claim 10, Tang as modified teaches the cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the La-Zr-O compound, La2Zr2O7, is not Li7La3Zr2O12 having a garnet structure.
Regarding claim 19, Tang as modified teaches a lithium secondary battery (“Li-ion batteries”, Abstract) comprising a cathode comprising a cathode active material layer that comprises the cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery of claim 1 (at least: Title and Abstract); and an anode (page 115, line 5 from the bottom) facing the cathode (One of ordinary skill in the art knows the two electrodes face each other).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang in view of Kwak and Park, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ohara et al. (US 20180191027 A1, hereafter Ohara).
Regarding claim 5, Tang in view of Kwak and Park teaches the cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery of claim 1, but is silent as to a crystallite size of the lithium-transition metal composite oxide particles.
In the same field of endeavor, Ohara disclose that a crystallite size of a lithium-transition metal composite oxide particle that is less than or equal to 360 nm would reduce the displacement amount at the time of expansion and contraction of the active material and suppresses generation of miniaturization (cracking) of secondary particles accompanying repeated charging and discharging, and thereby improve the cycle characteristics ([0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have incorporated the teachings of Ohara into Tang in view of Kwak and Park such that the crystallite size of the lithium-transition metal composite oxide particle is less than or equal to 360 nm in order to achieve benefits stated above. The claimed range of 300 nm to 600 nm overlaps the range of less than or equal to 360 nm. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I). Note that a crystallite size should not depend on a measurement method. Tang in view of Ohara teaches the claimed crystallite size, and thus teaches the invention as claimed in claim 5.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang in view of Kwak and Park, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schumacher et al. (US 20210343996 A1, hereafter Schumacher).
Regarding claim 7, Tang in view of Kwak and Park teaches the cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery of claim 1, but is silent as to a doped La-Zr-O compound.
Schumacher discloses a doped La-Zr-O compound, such as a doped lithium lanthanum zirconium oxide (LLZO) (See at least: [0017]-[0018]), is used as a component with high conductivity in a lithium secondary battery (at least: [0009]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have employed a doped La-Zr-O compound to replace the La-Zr-O compound of Tang in view of Kwak and Park for the benefit of its high conductivity. Also, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Tang as modified further teaches the doping element can be aluminum (Al) ([0018]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed Nov. 19, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments are based on the claims as amended. The amended claims have been addressed in the new rejections above.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHONGQING WEI whose telephone number is (571)272-4809. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 6:00.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571)272-1330. 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.
/ZHONGQING WEI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727