DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/15/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 8-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Although Blangero teaches the mixture of the lithium material doped with aluminum and the mixture with cobalt material which is subsequently heat treated, it does not teach the core particle having two regions one which is a layered and the other which is spinel and the formula is as specified in subsequent claims 9 and 10. Further search and consideration yield no similar results or combination which would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-2, 4-7, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by(US-20140212759-A1), hereinafter referred to as ‘Blangero’, as evidenced by ‘Growth of ultrathin cobalt oxide films on Pd(100): Refined structural model’ hereinafter referred to as, ‘Schmidt’ in view of (US-20180145368-A1) hereinafter referred toas ‘Ochai’
Regarding Claim 1,
Blangero teaches a method of producing a positive electrode active material for a lithium rechargeable battery (Blangero, “The invention relates to high voltage stable and high density lithium metal oxide…Also a method to manufacture these materials is disclosed”, see [0001]), comprising: mixing a core particle comprising lithium cobalt oxide doped with Al (Blangero, “the core material having a layered crystal structure consisting of the elements Li, a metal M and oxygen, wherein the Li content is stoichiometrically controlled, wherein the metal M has the formula M=Co1-a M′a, with 0≦a≦0.05, preferably 0≦a≦0.01, wherein M′ is either one or more metals of the group consisting of Al, Ga and B;”, see [0027]) and a cobalt raw material comprising tricobalt tetraoxide (Co3O4), cobalt (II) hydroxide (Co(OH)2), or a mixture thereof (Blangero, “providing a first mixture of a first Co- or Co and M′-comprising and a first Li-comprising precursor powder,”. See [0027]) (Blangero, “possible forms, but not limited to, are LiMO2, MgO, CoO, Co1-φMgφO with φ≦1, Co3O4”, see [0062]); and calcining the mixture of the cobalt raw material and the core particle (Blangero, “sintering this mixture in an oxygen comprising atmosphere at a temperature T1 of at least 600° C.”, see [0068]).
Blangero does not teach wherein the positive electrode active material comprises the core particle comprising lithium cobalt oxide doped with aluminum (Al), wherein the core particle comprises: a first region in which a crystal structure of the lithium cobalt oxide doped with Al is a first crystal structure ; and a second region in which a crystal structure of the lithium cobalt oxide doped with Al is a second crystal structure, wherein the first and second crystal structures are different from each other.
Ochai teaches wherein the positive electrode active material comprises the core particle comprising lithium cobalt oxide doped with aluminum (Al), wherein the core particle comprises: a first region in which a crystal structure of the lithium cobalt oxide doped with Al is a first crystal structure (Ochai, “As the element M, a transition metal that can form a layered rock-salt complex oxide with lithium is preferably used. For example, one or a plurality of manganese, cobalt, and nickel can be used. That is, as the transition metal contained in the first region 101, only cobalt may be used, cobalt and manganese may be used, or cobalt, manganese, and nickel may be used. In addition to the transition metal as the element M, the first region 101 may contain a metal other than the transition metal, such as aluminum.”, see [0075]) ; and a second region in which a crystal structure of the lithium cobalt oxide doped with is a second crystal structure, wherein the first and second crystal structures are different from each other (Ochai, “The second region 102 preferably has a rock-salt crystal structure because the orientations of crystals are likely to be aligned with those in the first region 101, and thus the second region 102 easily functions as a stable coating layer. Note that the entire second region 102 does not necessarily have a rock-salt crystal structure. For example, part of the second region 102 may be amorphous or has another crystal structure.”, see [0085]).
Ochai teaches that the material having different crystal structures allows for effectively coating and high-capacity retention (Ochai, “The second region 102 preferably has a rock-salt crystal structure because the orientations of crystals are likely to be aligned with those in the first region 101, and thus the second region 102 easily functions as a stable coating layer”, see [0085])(Ochai, “In FIG. 30A, the second region 102 with a thickness of approximately 1.5 nm was formed on the surface of the particle. It is suggested that the second region 102 and the first region 101 located inward from the second region 102 had different crystal structures and different crystal orientations.”, see [0332])(see Fig. 31B, sample 4, the examiner notes sample 4 has the highest retention).
Blangero and Ochai are analogous as they are both of the same field of positive electrode materials.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the material as taught in Blangero to have two different crystal structures as taught in Ochai in order to improve the capacity retention and allow for a preferable crystal bonding.
Regarding Claim 2,
Modified Blangero teaches the method of claim 1, wherein: in the calcining of the mixture of the cobalt raw material and the core particle, a phase of the cobalt raw material is changed into a cobalt-based compound having a rock salt crystal structure (Blangero, “In another embodiment the core material has hexagonal layered crystal structure described as an ordered rock salt-type crystal structure with space group R-3m”, see [0060] )and a surface of the core particle is coated with the cobalt-based compound having a rock salt crystal structure (Blangero, “possible forms, but not limited to, are LiMO2, MgO, CoO, Co1-φMgφO with φ≦1, Co3O4”, see [0062]) (The examiner notes that cobalt oxide is a rock salt structure, as evidenced by Schmidt (Schmidt, “Cobalt is a multivalent element, which forms oxides in the CoO rock salt”, Introduction)).
Regarding Claim 4,
Modified Blangero teaches the method of claim 1, wherein: in the calcining of the mixture of the cobalt raw material and the core particle, a calcination temperature is 800 to 1,200° C (Blangero, “T1 of at least 600° C.”, see [0032]).
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of at least 600 broadly overlaps the claimed range of 800 to 1,200. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 5,
Modified Blangero teaches the method of claim 1, wherein: in the calcining of the mixture of the cobalt raw material and the core particle, a calcination time is 2 to 10 hours (Blangero, “The method according to claim 52, wherein each of the sintering step at T1 and the sintering step at T2 is performed during a time between 6 and 24 hours.”, see Clm. 52).
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of at least 6 to 24 hours broadly overlaps the claimed range of 2 to 10 hours. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 6,
Modified Blangero teaches the method of claim 1, wherein:the positive electrode active material further comprises: a coating layer on a surface of the core particle, wherein the coating layer comprises a cobalt-based compound having a rock salt crystal structure (Blangero, “Preparation of Example 2 (noted Ex2): 94 mol % of LCO-1 and 6 mol % of 0.25 mol % Ti and 0.5 mol % Mg doped Co(OH)”, see [0111]) ]) (Blangero, “possible forms, but not limited to, are LiMO2, MgO, CoO, Co1-φMgφO with φ≦1, Co3O4”, see [0062]).
Regarding Claim 7,
Modified Blangero teaches the method of claim 6, wherein :the cobalt-based compound having the rock salt crystal structure is cobalt(II) oxide. (Blangero, “possible forms, but not limited to, are LiMO2, MgO, CoO, Co1-φMgφO with φ≦1, Co3O4”, see [0062]) (The examiner notes that cobalt oxide is a rock salt structure) (The examiner notes that cobalt oxide is a rock salt structure, as evidenced by Schmidt (Schmidt, “Cobalt is a multivalent element, which forms oxides in the CoO rock salt”, Introduction)).
Regarding Claim 11,
Modified Blangero teaches the method of claim 1, wherein: in the mixing of the cobalt raw material with the core particle, a weight ratio of the core particle to the cobalt raw material is 1,000:0.2 to 1,000:10 (Blangero, “Preparation of Example 2 (noted Ex2): 94 mol % of LCO-1 and 6 mol % of 0.25 mol % Ti and 0.5 mol % Mg doped Co(OH)2;”, see [0111]).(The examiner notes LCO molar mass is 97.82 g/mol an example sample and cobalt hydroxide molar mass is 92.948 g/mol sample; this would lead to a ratio of 1,000:5, which is within the range).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by (US-20140212759-A1), hereinafter referred to as ‘Blangero’, in view of (US-20180145368-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Ochai’ in view of (US-20170062802-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Yang’
Regarding Claim 12,
Modified Blangero does not teach the method of claim 1, wherein: in the mixing of the cobalt raw material with the core particle, a weight ratio of the core particle to the cobalt raw material is 1,000:0.2 to 1,000:2.
Yang teaches wherein: in the mixing of the cobalt raw material with the core particle, a weight ratio of the core particle to the cobalt raw material is 1,000:0.2 to 1,000:2 (Yang, “cobalt hydroxide, citric acid, oxalic acid, basic magnesium carbonate, magnesium oxide, and calcium carbonate. The amount of the additive is 0.03˜2 mass percent of the secondary powder”, see [0037]).
Yang teaches that this ratio allows for the prevention of side reactions (Yang, “The surface additives can be added at the end of the process to form a protection layer on the oxide crystal,”, see [0040]).
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 0.03-2 mass percent broadly overlaps the claimed range of 1,000:0.2 to 1,000:2. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Blangero and Yang are analogous as they are both of the same field of materials for positive electrodes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the content of cobalt hydroxide in the mixture as taught in Blangero to be 0.03-2 mass percent in order to allow for the formation of beneficial oxides and to prevent side reactions as taught in Yang.
Response to Arguments
7. Arguments filed on 04/15/2026have been entered. Arguments are fully considered.
9. On pg. 6, the applicant states:
“As generally agreed during the telephone interview, the cited art fails to teach or suggest a "core particle compris[ing]... a first crystal structure; and... a second crystal structure, wherein the first and second crystal structures are different from each other," as recited in amended claim 1.”
10. The examiner finds this convincing and has added to the record Ochai, which teaches a positive electrode active material doped with aluminum with different crystal structures. The examiner notes that only one of the regions contains aluminum. However, Blangero teaches two regions with aluminum (Blangero, “the core material having a layered crystal structure consisting of the elements Li, a metal M and oxygen, wherein the Li content is stoichiometrically controlled, wherein the metal M has the formula M=Co1-a M′a, with 0≦a≦0.05, preferably 0≦a≦0.01, wherein M′ is either one or more metals of the group consisting of Al, Ga and B;”, see [0027]). Ochai provides motivation which would make obvious one of ordinary skill in the art to motivate Blangero to have two different crystal structure formation for improvements in capacity retention, as outlined above.
10. On pg. 7, the applicant states:
“With respect to the previously presented claim 1, the Action points to Example 2 in [0111] of Blangero for allegedly teaching a weight ratio (core particle : cobalt raw material) of 1,000:5. However, Blangero does not teach or suggest a weight ratio that is within the claimed range of "1,000:0.2 to 1,000:2" and therefore, Blangero does not anticipate the claim feature. Moreover, Blangero further fails to provide any motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the narrower weight ratio of the core particle to the cobalt raw material, as claimed. Thus, claim 12 is independently allowable in addition to being allowable by virtue of its dependency from an allowable base claim.”
11. The examiner finds this convincing and adds to the record ‘Yang’ which teaches a cobalt hydroxide content of 0.03 % and its benefits, as outlined above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAMUS PATRICK MCNULTY whose telephone number is (703)756-1909. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:00am to 5pm.
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, Nicholas A. Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/S.P.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights