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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/5/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 2/5/2026. Claims 4 and 6 have been canceled. Claims 1-3, 5, 7-11, 13-20 are pending. Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to a non-elected invention, in accordance with 37 CFR 1.142(b). Applicant’s arguments have been considered. Claims 1-3, 5, 7-11, 13, 14 are non-finally rejected for reasons 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, 5, 7-11, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paulsen (WO 2019/120973) in view of Matsuda (EP 3082183) and Shin (US 2018/0316005).
Regarding claim 1, Paulsen discloses a positive active material comprising:
a lithium transition metal oxide particle, and
a cobalt-containing coating layer arranged on a surface of the lithium transition metal oxide particle, wherein
the lithium transition metal oxide particle comprises a concentration gradient region, in which a concentration of Co decreases in a direction from the surface to the center of the particle. See Abstract and page 8.
Regarding claim 1, the coating layer comprises a cobalt-containing compound represented by Formula 5, Paulsen discloses a coating layer having LiCoO2 where it may also be that Co is partly replaced by the dopant A (page 4).
Regarding claim 2, in the concentration gradient region, a concentration of Ni increases in the direction from the surface of the lithium transition metal oxide particle to the center of the particle (page 8). It is noted that Ni does not exist on the coating layer.
Regarding claim 3, the concentration gradient region comprises a region extending to a distance of 500 nm from the surface to the center of the lithium transition metal oxide particle, Paulsen discloses surface modification such as a coating on the surface of positive electrode materials is a known strategy to suppress side reactions between the electrode materials and the electrolytes that can lead to poor electrochemical performance during the cycling. Surface coatings may also enhance the structural stability of positive electrode materials, resulting in excellent battery performance. Monolithic positive electrode materials can be further improved by applying certain Co based coatings, which we will refer to as "Co-(concentration) gradient" coatings. Providing a concentration gradient for the shell or the entire particle in fact constitutes a good approach to improve the electrochemical properties of positive electrode materials. The positive electrode material has a prolonged lifespan and improved thermal stability (pages 8-9). Paulsen discloses varying the amount of Co in the coating in several examples (Table 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the depth of the Co concentration gradient region depending on the degree of protection the active material needs from exposure to electrolyte.
Regarding claim 7, the lithium transition metal oxide is a single particle.
Regarding claim 8, the lithium transition metal oxide is a single crystal.
Regarding claim 11, an average diameter (D50) of the lithium transition metal oxide is 0.1 um to 20 um (page 7).
Regarding claim 1, the lithium metal oxide particle comprises a lithium transition metal oxide represented by Formula 1, Paulsen discloses a general formula
Li1-a(((Niz(Ni1⁄2 Mn1/2)yCox)1-k Ak)1-aO2, wherein A is a dopant, -0.02<a<0.06, 0.10<x<0.35, 0<z<0.90, x+y+z= 1 and k<0.01 (page 3). Regarding claim 1, Paulsen discloses optionally M is one or more elements selected from Mn, Al, V, Ca, Zr, B, and P. See Paulsen page 3. Regarding claim 1, Paulsen does not disclose a portion of Li substituted by Na. Matsuda teaches a cathode active material comprising lithium transition metal oxide having a portion of Li substituted by Na [0022]. Na, in the core of the present powder, is capable of inhibiting disintegration of the crystal structure of the core during charging where Li ions are eliminated. This is assumed to be because Na ions, compared to Li ions, have less mobility and require more time for extraction by voltage application, so that Na ions tend to inhibit disintegration of the crystal structure to thereby improve the durability during charging. Thus, in the powder of the present invention, the Na is preferably present particularly in the core [0020]. By optimizing the w value, disintegration may be inhibited of the crystal structure of the core caused by elimination of Li ions particularly during continuous charging or high-voltage charging at not lower than 4.3 V, which eventually contributes to the safety and stability of rechargeable batteries [0020]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to substitute some of Li for Na and adjust the amount of Na, as taught by Matsuda, for the benefit of forming a stable crystal structure.
Regarding Applicant’s Mg, and Ti dopants in claim 1 and claim 10, Paulsen discloses the dopant is one or more of Al, Ca, W, B, Si, Ti, Mg, and Zr (page 3), but does not specifically disclose the combination of W, Mg, and Ti. Shin teaches a lithium transition metal oxide having a dopant comprising Mg and Ti, further comprising another dopant comprising al, B, Va, Na, K, Cr, V, Fe, Cu, Zr, An, Sr, Sb, Y, Nb, Ga, Si, Sn, Mo, W, Ba [0046, 0047]. Various technologies have tried to inhibit cation mixing from occurring in a high-temperature synthesis process, for example, by using an excess amount of a lithium source and improving cell performance by adding a dopant element. However, using an increased amount of a lithium source in the synthesis of a high-Ni (Ni≥70%) NCM material may lead to excessive growth of grains (primary particles) in the positive active material, and in particular, on a surface region of secondary particles (agglomerates of primary particles), and consequently a reduced diffusion rate of lithium ions. During charging and discharging, repeated shrinkage and expansion of the grains may occur due to the intercalation/deintercalation of lithium ions. In this regard, due to excessive growth of grains and a non-uniform grain size, a positive active material according to conventional technology may have poor resistance against the physical stress caused by such repeated shrinkage and expansion, such that a conduction path of the positive active material particles may become disconnected resulting in a dead zone where charge does not reach, and consequently, resulting in deteriorated battery performance. The grain growth after high-temperature thermal treatment may be varied by using a dopant and controlling the lithium content. When the grain size is too small, a lithium secondary battery may have deteriorated performance due to poor development of the layered structure. Meanwhile, when the grain size is too large, due to the above-described drawbacks, such as a reduced diffusion rate of lithium ions, poor resistance against physical stress caused by repeated shrinkage and expansion of the grains, or the like, a lithium secondary battery may have deteriorated performance [0042]. When a positive active material is doped with Mg or Ti alone, performance improvement does not occur compared to an undoped positive active material. However, the positive active material which is doped with both Mg and Ti, according to an embodiment, may have remarkably improved performance as compared to an undoped positive active material. When Mg is used alone as the dopant, a significant increase in the grain size may occur as the amount of Mg increases. When Ti is used alone as the dopant, the grain size may be reduced. Accordingly, a cycle lifetime improvement effect expected from doping with Mg may be cancelled by the grain size increase caused by the doped Mg. However, when Mg is doped together with Ti, the grain size increase may be inhibited so that cycle lifetime characteristics may be improved [0050].
Regarding claim 5, wherein in Formula 1, b and g are 0< b<0.003 and 0< g <0.003, respectively, Shin teaches the amount of Mg and Ti is 0<d<0.03 [0048]. Further, a molar ratio of Ti:Mg may be about 1:1 to about 3:1, and in some embodiments, about 1:1 to about 2.5:1, and in some other embodiments, about 1.4:1 to about 2.4:1. When the molar ratio of Ti:Mg is within these ranges, a lithium secondary battery having improved cycle lifetime characteristics may be implemented [0060].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to add the dopants Mg and Ti of Shin to the dopants of Paulsen, as taught by Shin, for the benefit of appropriately forming the grain size of Paulsen.
Regarding the element S in claim 1, Paulsen discloses that oxygen in the general formula is partly replaced by S, F, or N (page 4). Paulsen discloses a dopant either improves structural and thermal stability or enhances of ionic conductivity (page 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to replace some oxygen with S for the benefit of improving structural and thermal stability or enhancing of ionic conductivity.
Regarding Applicant’s dopant W in claim 1 and claim 10, Paulsen discloses a dopant W (page 3). A dopant either improves structural and thermal stability or enhance of ionic conductivity (page 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to add a W as a dopant and adjust its amount for the benefit of improving structural and thermal stability or enhancing of ionic conductivity.
Regarding claim 9, the lithium transition metal oxide is represented by any one of Formulae 2 to 4, it is noted that Paulsen modified by Matsuda and Shin reads on Applicant’s claim 9.
Regarding claim 13, wherein 0.3<y1/(y1+z1)<1, Paulsen discloses a coating layer having LiCoO2 where it may also be that Co is partly replaced by the dopant A (page 4). The dopant is one or more of Al, Ca, W, B, Si, Ti, Mg, and Zr (page 3). A dopant either improves structural and thermal stability or enhance of ionic conductivity (page 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the dopant amount for the benefit of improving structural and thermal stability or enhancing of ionic conductivity of the surface layer. It is noted that adjusting the amount of dopant necessarily adjusts the amount of the cobalt.
Regarding claim 20, Paulsen modified by Matsuda and Shin teaches a lithium secondary battery comprising:
a positive electrode comprising the positive active material according to any one of claim 1;
a negative electrode; and
an electrolyte.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paulsen (WO 2019/120973) in view of Matsuda (EP 3082183) and Shin (US 2018/0316005) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Noh (WO 2020/036396, using US 2021/0359293 as translation).
Regarding claim 14, the coating layer comprises a cobalt-containing compound represented by Formula 6, Paulsen discloses a coating layer comprising LiCoO2, where it may also be that Co is partly replaced by the dopant A (page 4), wherein the dopant is one or more of Al, Ca, W, B, Si, Ti, Mg, and Zr (page 3). Noh teaches A cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery according to embodiments of the present invention includes a lithium metal oxide particle which includes a core part and a shell part and contains nickel (Ni), cobalt (Co) and manganese (Mn). A total Ni content of the lithium metal oxide particle is 70 mol % or more based on a total 100 mol % of Ni, Co and Mn. The shell part includes a depth region in a range of 10 to 100 nm from a surface of the lithium metal oxide particle, and a Co content thereof in the depth region is 1.4 to 6 times a Co content of the core part. Stability of the lithium secondary battery may be improved through surface treatment using high content of Co. See Abstract. The shell part 70 containing high concentration or high content of cobalt may be provided as a surface coating layer of the core part 60 to suppress surface oxidation and decomposition of active metals such as lithium and nickel of the core part 60 [0065]. However, according to exemplary embodiments of the present invention, the shell part 70 is formed to have a composition substantially the same as or similar to the core part 60. However, by increasing the concentration of cobalt, the shell part 70 may be substantially provided as a surface coating layer without additional transition metal doping [0068]. Cobalt may be included as metal that improves a conductivity of the lithium secondary battery, and thus, by including the shell part 70, even the surface resistance of the lithium metal oxide particle 50 may be decreased, and thereby increasing the conductivity [0069]. In addition, since the core part 60 and the shell part 70 have substantially the same or similar composition except for a difference in the concentration of elements, it is possible to maintain a uniform and stable crystal structure throughout the particle [0070].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to form the coating of Paulsen with a similar composition as the core, as taught by Noh, for the benefit of forming a stable crystal structure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to increase the cobalt concentration on the coating, as taught by Noh, for the benefit of suppressing surface oxidation and decomposition of active metals such as lithium and nickel of the core part.
Response to Arguments
Arguments dated 2/5/2026 are addressed below:
Applicant asserts the combination includes a primary reference (Paulsen) and two secondary references (Matsuda and Shin), that do not recognize the technical interplay between bulk dopant stabilization and surface concentration-gradient engineering, and therefore do not provide any basis for expecting that such a combination would succeed. In effect, Paulsen, Matsuda and Shin do not recognize the problem the claimed invention looks to solve, and also do not provide any suggestion of a solution to any such problem.
For example, the primary reference (Paulsen) merely discloses a positive active material in which a Co-gradient coating is applied to an NCM-based cathode active material in order to suppress crack formation caused by volume changes during charge and discharge. However, Applicant respectfully submits that Paulsen does not provide any specific disclosure, teaching or suggestion regarding a particular combination of dopant elements.
Moreover, the 1st secondary reference (Matsuda) discloses a technique in which Li is partially substituted with Na in an LCO-based cathode active material (rather than a Ni-based cathode active material), and side reactions with the electrolyte are suppressed by means of an amorphous coating layer containing La, Ti, Co, and oxygen. Although the examples of Matsuda disclose LCO-based cathode active material particles doped with Al, Mg, Ti, and Zr, Matsuda does not evaluate or recognize the effects resulting from such dopant elements themselves, but rather focuses solely on the effect of the presence or absence of the amorphous coating layer. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that Matsuda also fails to provide any disclosure, teaching or suggestion that would lead to a specific combination of dopant elements, e.g., as claimed.
Moreover still, the 2nd secondary reference (Shin) discloses that particle size can be controlled by doping Mg and Ti into an NCM-based cathode active material. However, Applicant respectfully submits that Shin does not provide any disclosure, teaching or suggestion regarding doping a combination of W, Mg, and Ti for the purpose of stabilizing unstable Ni ions.
Therefore, since the primary reference (Paulsen) and the two secondary references (Matsuda and Shin) all fail to provide any specific disclosure, teaching or suggestion regarding doping a combination of W, Mg, and Ti to stabilize Ni ions, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been able to readily derive a positive active material comprising a lithium transition metal oxide particle represented by Formula 1 of the claimed present invention, which is doped with W, Mg, and Ti, based on these prior art references in the combination.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2145 states: Prima Facie Obviousness Is Not Rebutted by Merely Recognizing Additional Advantages or Latent Properties Present But Not Recognized in the Prior Art. In response to applicant's argument that the prior arts do not recognize the technical interplay between bulk dopant stabilization and surface concentration-gradient engineering, and therefore do not provide any basis for expecting that such a combination would succeed, it has been held that the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). See MPEP 2145.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, Applicant has pointed to the deficiencies of each prior art, but has failed to consider the rejection as a whole. Applicant has not addressed the obviousness of each rationale as proposed by the Examiner, but merely points to the deficiencies of each prior art.
Further, although Applicant argues that Matsuda does not evaluate or recognize the effects resulting from such dopant elements themselves, but rather focuses solely on the effect of the presence or absence of the amorphous coating layer, Matsuda teaches that Na, in the core of the present powder, is capable of inhibiting disintegration of the crystal structure of the core during charging where Li ions are eliminated. This is assumed to be because Na ions, compared to Li ions, have less mobility and require more time for extraction by voltage application, so that Na ions tend to inhibit disintegration of the crystal structure to thereby improve the durability during charging. Thus, in the powder of the present invention, the Na is preferably present particularly in the core [0020]. By optimizing the w value, disintegration may be inhibited of the crystal structure of the core caused by elimination of Li ions particularly during continuous charging or high-voltage charging at not lower than 4.3 V, which eventually contributes to the safety and stability of rechargeable batteries [0020].
Although Applicant argues that Shin does not provide any disclosure teaching or suggestion regarding doping a combination of W, Mg, and Ti for the purpose of stabilizing unstable Ni ions, it has been held that the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). See MPEP 2145.
Applicant argues that there would be no expectation of success to combine the proposed references. For instance, as one skilled in the art would appreciate, in Ni-rich lithium transition metal oxides, the incorporation of dopant elements into the lattice is highly sensitive, and inappropriate dopant selection or concentration often leads to degradation of electrochemical performance, including reduced capacity and increased resistance. As one skilled in the art would also appreciate, the effects of individual dopants cannot be predictably extrapolated to a multi-dopant system, particularly when multiple dopants occupy different lattice sites or exhibit competing interactions.
Further still, the primary reference (Paulsen) and two secondary references (Matsuda and Shin) do not disclose, teach or suggest that the combined doping of W, Mg, and Ti would synergistically stabilize Ni ions while maintaining or improving high- capacity and long-cycle-life characteristics. In particular, neither Paulsen nor Matsuda addresses bulk lattice stabilization in Ni-rich systems, and Shin merely teaches particle size control, not electrochemical stabilization.
Furthermore, as stated above, the claimed invention combines bulk lattice doping (W, Mg, Ti) with a Co-containing surface coating and a Co concentration gradient, which together contribute to improved structural stability and electrochemical performance. As also stated above, the primary reference (Paulsen) and the two secondary references (Matsuda and Shin) do not recognize the technical interplay between bulk dopant stabilization and surface concentration-gradient engineering, and therefore do not provide any basis for expecting that such a combination would succeed. Because of this, Applicant respectfully submits that one of ordinary skill in the art would have no apparent reason to combine the primary reference (Paulsen) and the two secondary references (Matsuda and Shin) in the manner proposed
In response, MPEP 2145 states: Prima Facie Obviousness Is Not Rebutted by Merely Recognizing Additional Advantages or Latent Properties Present But Not Recognized in the Prior Art.
Applicants argue that the effects of individual dopants cannot be predictably extrapolated to a multi-dopant system, particularly when multiple dopants occupy different lattice sites or exhibit competing interactions, but does not provide evidence to support Applicant’s assertion. In fact, Shin clearly teaches that when Mg is doped together with Ti, the grain size increase may be inhibited so that cycle lifetime characteristics may be improved [0050].
In response to Applicant’s argument that the prior art does not teach or suggest that the combined doping of W, Mg, and Ti would synergistically stabilize Ni ions while maintaining or improving high- capacity and long-cycle-life characteristics, Shin clearly teaches that when Mg is doped together with Ti, the grain size increase may be inhibited so that cycle lifetime characteristics may be improved [0050]. Further, it has been held that the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). See MPEP 2145.
In response to applicant's argument that the prior arts do not recognize the technical interplay between bulk dopant stabilization and surface concentration-gradient engineering, and therefore do not provide any basis for expecting that such a combination would succeed, it has been held that the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). See MPEP 2145.
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