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 Claims 20-25 are withdrawn.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 09/16/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made over Jo, in view of Gong.
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), in view of Gong (CN110165192A, translation attached)
Regarding claim 14, Jo discloses an electrode active material (“positive active material” in title) 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] which does not follow the claimed weight ratio “of core (A) and particles (B) ranges 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 [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 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]), 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
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
/JONATHAN G LEONG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 1/22/2026