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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1-13, 18 are canceled. Claims 14-17, 19-25 are currently pending. Claims 20-25 are withdrawn. Claims 14-17, 19 are currently presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks/arguments, filed 04/09/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 14 have been fully considered but are not found persuasive.
Applicant argues that Jo discloses a shell that is not a distinct phase, but rather a compositional variation within a continuous lattice structure and further cites “the concept of the shell is not a separate phase which is distinguished and completely independent from the core, but it can be seen as the same concept as the one surface-doped by changing composition and content [Jo 0035].”
Examiner notes that Jo further discloses that “if it is an extent that the core and the shell can be distinguished from each other, the surface-doped configuration is also included in the scope of the present invention” [0035 Jo]. Examiner further notes that the argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claim, as Claim 14 currently does not recite wherein the electrode active material comprises a shell with a distinct phase, and further Jo discloses wherein the shell comprises particles of Co and at least one selected from Al, Ti, Zr [Jo 0023-0027], wherein the core and the shell are formed by:
(1) mixing a cobalt precursor, a lithium precursor, and three kinds of dopant precursors and subjecting them to a primary calcination to prepare core particles [0062], and
(2) mixing the core particles, the cobalt precursor, the lithium precursor, and the three kinds of dopant precursors independently of said step (1), and subjecting them to a secondary calcination to form a shell on the core particle surface [0063].
Since Jo discloses wherein the core of step (1) is further mixed with Co, Li, and dopant precursors, followed by a secondary calcination, a person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably envisage the shell to have formed independently from the core such that the particles are “attached to the surface of the core material” as argued.
Regarding the argument that Jo “fails to provide clear direction to incorporate nickel and only have cobalt as an optional component in the TM” and that “none of the exemplified compositions in Jo discloses nickel” (pg 6), Examiner respectfully disagrees. Even though Jo does not disclose an embodiment wherein the core comprises Ni, Jo discloses wherein the core may have LiaCo1-x-y-zM1xM2yM3zO2 (see formula (1) in [0023-0027]), wherein M1, M2, M3 are selected from the group comprising Ni and Mn. As such, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have selected Ni as one of the M1, M2, or M3 for the core with a reasonable expectation to form a Ni-containing core.
Regarding the argument that Gong employs a continuous coating layer rather than discrete particles attached to the surface of the core material as required by the present claims, Examiner notes that the argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claim. Specifically, Claim 14 does not particularly limit the shape or form of the particles, and further does not specifically require the attached particles to be discrete or non-continuous.
Further, Gong discloses in [Gong 0019-0021] wherein the electrode active material is formed by:
(1) mixing a lithium source and a nickel cobalt manganese hydroxide precursor and sintering to form granular single-crystal lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide [Gong 0019]
(2) forming a cobalt tetroxide slurry [Gong 0020]
(3) mixing the single-crystal lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide of step (1), lithium salt, metal containing additives (i.e., containing Mg, Al, Zr, Ti, W), and the cobalt tetroxide slurry from step (2) [Gong 0021]
(4) spray-drying and sintering [Gong 0021].
Thus, Gong essentially teaches wherein the core (i.e., the single-crystal lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide formed in step (1)) is coated and sintered with lithium salt, metal containing additives, and cobalt tetroxide (i.e, steps (3)-(4) above), which a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize as a physical process of forming an outer layer onto a core, inherently resulting in the material being “attached to the surface” as argued.
Thus, the limitation (B) reciting that “the particles are attached to the surface of the core material” is considered met.
Applicant further argues there is no motivation to combine Jo and Gong for Claim 14 as Jo focuses on improving structural stability through control of dopant oxidation states within a cobalt-based lattice, whereas Gong focuses on improving performance through a single-crystal NCM core combined with a coated shell layer (pg 9). Examiner notes that Jo and Gong are both directed to improving positive electrode active material at high voltages. Jo recognizes that the core comprising a lithium oxide with transitional metals and the shell comprising particles of Co, Al, and Ti (as currently claimed) improve the structural stability of the electrode active material at high temperature and high voltage, improving life characteristic [Jo 0018].
Gong also recognizes that the positive electrode active material comprising such structure (i.e., core comprising lithium oxide with transitional metal and shell comprising Co and at least one of Al, Zr, Ti [0012], as currently claimed) provides excellent charge/discharge efficiency and high capacity retention rate, and excellent cycle performance and safety performance under high voltage of 4.35V and 4.4V [0008 Gong], wherein the core exhibits a high specific capacity under high voltage and improve the compaction density of the material [Gong 0022] and shell material has a very low residual lithium content and good processing performance and can work in junction with the core material to improve the ionic and electronic conductivity and rate performance of the cathode material [0046 Gong]. Gong further recognizes that when the core:shell mass ratio is 10-200:1, preferably 10-180:1 [Gong 0015], which falls within the claimed range of “1000:1 to 10:1”.
Thus, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have optimized the core shell mass ratio of Jo, based on the teachings of Gong, by way of routine experimentation to arrive at a desired balance between specific capacity under high voltage and rate performance of the cathode material.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 14-17, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jo (US20190148711A1, previously cited), in view of Gong (CN110165192A, previously cited)
Regarding claim 14, Jo discloses an electrode active material (“positive active material” in title; [0105]) comprising:
(A) a core material Li1.02Co0.94Mg0.04Al0.01Ti0.01O2 (Example 1 [0105]), which does not comprise Ni, as claimed.
In this regard, Jo discloses that the core has a composition of LiaCo1-x-y-zM1xM2yM3zO2, wherein M1, M2, M3 are each independently selected from the group consisting of Mg, Al, Ti, Ni, Mn, wherein 0.95≤a≤1.05, 0<x≤0.04, 0<y≤0.04, and 0<z≤0.04 (i.e., Formula (1); [0023-0027]). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the core material of Example 1, such that it further includes Ni, with a reasonable expectation to provide an electrode active material having structural stability even at high operation voltage [0010].
Further, the subscripts of the core material in Example 1 (Li1.02Co0.94Mg0.04Al0.01Ti0.01O2 [Jo 0105]) do not read on the claimed general formula Li1+x1TM1−x1O2, wherein x1 ranges from -0.05 to 0.2 (i.e., molar amount of TM in Example 1 is 1, not 0.98). However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found the molar amount of TM being 1 so close to the 0.98 that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have expected them to have substantially the same characteristics, thus rendering the claimed 1-x1 obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
(B) particles of cobalt compound(s), aluminum compound(s), and at least one of titanium compound(s) and zirconium compound(s) (i.e., shell comprising Li1.02Co0.944Mg0.006Al0.04Ti0.01O2)
wherein a molar ratio of lithium to cobalt in the particles is 1.08 (i.e., 1.02/0.944) which is substantially close to the claimed range of “from zero to below 1” absent evidence contrary. Jo further discloses wherein Li ranges from 0.95≤a≤1.05, Co ranges from 1-x-y-z, wherein 0<x≤0.04, 0<y≤0.04, and 0<z≤0.04 (i.e., Co ranges from 0.88 to 1), wherein the molar ratio of Li/Co overlaps with the claimed range of “from zero to below 1”. A person having ordinary skill in the art would modify the molar amount of Li and Co such that they are in the overlapping ratio, with a reasonable expectation to provide an active material that is capable of suppressing a change of the surface structure under high temperature and high voltage, thereby improving structural stability of the positive active material [0018].
Jo further discloses:
wherein in particles (B) a molar ratio of Co to the sum of Al and Zr or Ti is 0.944:(0.04+0.0.01) = 18:1 which falls within the claimed range of “from 2:1 to 50:1”
wherein the particles are attached to the surface of the core material (i.e., core-shell structure [0105]).
Jo further discloses wherein 200g of core (Li1.02Co0.94Mg0.04Al0.01Ti0.01O2) is mixed with 1mol Co3O4, 1 mol of Al2O3, 1 mol of TiO2 [0105] (i.e., 422.63 g/mol), wherein the weight ratio of core (a) and particles (B) does not fall within the claimed weight ratio ranging “from 1000:1 to 10:1”.
In this regard, Gong is also directed to a core-shell positive electrode material, wherein the core-shell positive electrode material comprises a core comprising Li, Ni, Co, Mn (i.e., “Ni and at least one of Mn, Co and Al” as claimed; [0012]) and a shell comprising particles of Co and at least one of Al, Zr, Ti [Gong 0012]. Gong further teaches that the mass ratio of the core layer to the shell layer is 10-200:1, preferably 10-180:1 [0015], which completely falls within the claimed range of “1000:1 to 10:1”.
Gong further teaches that the core exhibits a high specific capacity under high voltage and improve the compaction density of the material [Gong 0022], and shell material has a very low residual lithium content and good processing performance and can work in junction with the core material to improve the ionic and electronic conductivity and rate performance of the cathode material [0046 Gong].
Thus, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the mass ratio of core and the shell, by way of routine experimentation, to arrive at a desired balance between specific capacity under high voltage and rate performance of the cathode material.
Regarding claim 15, modified Jo discloses the electrode active material according to claim 14 having a structure Li1.02Co0.94Mg0.04Al0.01Ti0.01O2 (core in Example 1 [0105]), which does not include Ni and Mn, as claimed. The subscripts further do not fall within the claimed ranges.
In this regard, Gong teaches wherein the core comprises (NixCoyMn1-x-y)O2, wherein 1.0≤a ≤1.15, 0.2≤x≤0.6, 0.1≤y≤0.5, 1-x-y>0, which overlaps with the claimed molar ranges of Ni, Co, Mn. Gong teaches that such core can exhibit a high specific capacity under high voltage, provides high compaction density, and reduces formation of new material surfaces [0022]. Thus, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the TM of Jo such that Ni, Co, Mn are in the overlapping range, with a reasonable expectation to provide a cathode core having high specific capacity and high compaction density [Gong 0022].
Regarding claims 16-17, modified Jo discloses the electrode active material according to claim 14, comprising Co3O4 as the cobalt compound (Example 1; [0105]-Jo), which a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize as having an average oxidation state of “higher than +II and lower than +III” as claimed.
Regarding claim 19, modified Jo discloses the electrode active material according to claim 14. Jo does not disclose an average diameter of the particles (B). In this regard, Gong teaches wherein Co3O4 has an average particle size of 80-100nm [Gong 0068], which falls within the claimed range of “10nm to 10µm”. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have controlled the average particle size of particle B (e.g., Co3O4), such that it is in the encompassed range, with a reasonable expectation to provide a shell having good processing performance [0046].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TAEYOUNG SON whose telephone number is (703)756-1427. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5pm.
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, 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 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.
/T.S./ Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/Haroon S. Sheikh/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 7/26/2026
Prosecution Insights