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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/17/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment and arguments filed 02/17/2026 have been fully considered. Claim(s) 1, 11 is/are amended; claim(s) 15-20 remain withdrawn; and claim(s) 7 and 10 has/have been canceled. Claims 1-3,5,8-9 and 11-20 are pending. Examiner affirms that the original disclosure provides adequate support for the amendment.
Upon considering said amendment and arguments, the previous rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 103 and 35 U.S.C. 112 set forth in the Office action mailed 11/14/2025 has/have been withdrawn. New grounds of rejection are presented hereinbelow.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 11 are objected to for failing to accurately depict the changes made. Claim 1 has been amended (see Claims filed 02/17/2026) to include limitations of cancelled claim 10, and to cancel previously presented limitations (compare with Claims filed 09/05/2025). Claim 11 has been amended in the preamble to recite dependency on claim 1 instead of claim 10. Claims 1 and 11 are missing markings to accurately depict the changes made through amendment according to 37 C.F.R. 1.121 (c); quoted below:
“Amendments to a claim must be made by rewriting the entire claim with all changes (e.g., additions and deletions) as indicated in this subsection, except when the claim is being canceled.”
“(2) When claim text with markings is required. All claims being currently amended in an amendment paper shall be presented in the claim listing, indicate a status of "currently amended," and be submitted with markings to indicate the changes that have been made relative to the immediate prior version of the claims. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 5 is 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.
Claim 5 recites "The positive electrode active material of claim 1, wherein, in Formula 1, β and γ are 0<β≤0.003 and 0<γ≤0.003, respectively.”
There is insufficient antecedent basis for the emphasized portions in claim 5, or in the preceding claim 1; preceding limitations fail to recite any Formula 1, comprising β and γ.
The emphasized limitation of claim 5 was provided with antecedent basis in claim 1 in the claims filed 09/05/2025, claim 1 previously reciting a Formula 1 comprising Mgβ and Tiγ prior to amendment.
Formulas 2-4, which are amended into claim 1 in the current set of claims from cancelled claim 10, are specific embodiments of the broader composition of claim 1 and similarly recite Mgβ and Tiγ as Mgβ’ and Tiγ’, Mgβ” and Tiγ”, and Mgβ’’’ and Tiγ’’’ respectively.
Thus, it is interpreted that the limitation "The positive electrode active material of claim 1, wherein, in Formula 1, β and γ are 0<β≤0.003 and 0<γ≤0.003, respectively” is intended to refer to concentrations β and γ of Mg and Ti in one of Formulae 2-4. As a non-limiting example, a suggested amendment to of this claim is "The positive electrode active material of claim 1, wherein, in Formula 2, 0<β′≤0.003 and 0<γ′≤0.003; in Formula 3, 0<β″≤0.003 and 0<γ″≤0.003; and in Formula 4, 0<β′″≤0.003 and 0<γ′″≤0.003., the emphasized limitation having basis in claims 1 and 5. For the purposes of examination, claim 5 is interpreted as reciting the above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3,5 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (KR-20180133141-A; see attached machine translation) in view of Xie et al. ("The Role of Sodium in LiNi0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2 Cathode Material and Its Electrochemical Behaviors"; copy provided with this Office action), Park et al. (US-20180233739-A1; hereinafter "Park/739"), and Park et al. ("Synthesis and electrochemical properties of lithium nickel oxysulfide (LiNiSyO2-y) material for lithium secondary batteries"; copy provided with this Office action, hereinafter “Park/NPL”).
Regarding claims 1, 5, 11, Cho discloses a positive electrode active material ([0037]) comprising:
a lithium transition metal oxide particle ([0047]);
a phosphorus-containing coating layer disposed on a surface of the lithium transition metal oxide particle (“coating layer comprising LiaPbOc”) ([0038]),
wherein the lithium transition metal oxide particle comprises a concentration gradient in which a concentration of Co atoms decreases from a surface towards a center of the particle ([0105-0106], FIG. 4(b)), thus rendering obvious limitations of the phosphorus-containing layer and Co gradient region of claim 1.
Cho provides an experimental example of the lithium transition metal oxide comprising LiNi0.84Co0.14Al0.02O2 (“Example”, [0086]); while appreciably similar in composition to Formula 3 of claim 1 (see below), particularly in terms of non-doping components Ni, Co, and Al:
[Formula 3] Li1−x″Nax″Niy1″Coy2″Aly3″Wα″Mgβ″Tiγ″O2−a″Sa″, where:
0<x″≤0.01, 0<α″≤0.01, 0<β″≤0.005, 0<γ″≤0.005, 0<a″≤0.01, 0<α″+β″+γ″≤0.02, 0.73≤y1″<1 (y1”=0.84), 0<y2″≤0.2 (y2”=0.14), 0<y3″≤0.05 (y3”=0.02; see Cho [0086]), and y1″+y2″+y3″+α″+β″+γ”=1,
Cho fails to expressly teach substituting x” parts Li with Nax”, substituting α″+β″+γ” parts Ni, Co, or Mn with Wα”, Mgβ”, and Tiγ”, and substituting a” parts O with Sa” as claimed in Formula 3 of claim 1.
However, Cho recognizes that Ni cathode active materials frequently suffer from poor reversible capacity and cycle life (Cho [0045]). It is known in the art, as taught by Xie (“Sodium in LiNi0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2 […]”) that substituting x parts Li with Nax improves the structural stability, providing significant improvements to capacity retention and rate performance, particularly when x=0.01 in Li0.99Ni0.01Ni0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2 (Xie, pp. 3240 §“Conclusions”).
As such, in seeking to improve the capacity retention and rate performance of Cho’s positive electrode active material, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art to substitute 0.01 parts Li with Nax in the active material composition to produce Li0.99Ni0.01Ni0.84Co0.14Al0.02O2, thus reading on a portion of the compositions claimed in Formula 3 comprising Li1−x″Nax″ where x”=0.01. Such a substitution would be made with a reasonable expectation of success because Cho (LiNi0.84Co0.14Al0.02O2, Cho [0086]) and Xie (Li0.99Ni0.01Ni0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2, Xie §“Conclusions”) are chemically alike as analogous NCA-type positive electrode active materials.
Cho modified as above fails to disclose doping α″, β″, γ” parts Wα”, Mgβ”, and Tiγ” respectively as claimed in Formula 3 of claim 1, where 0<α″≤0.01, 0<β″≤0.005, 0<γ″≤0.005, 0<α″+β″+γ″≤0.02, and y1″+y2″+y3″+α″+β″+γ”=1, however, considerations of improving the structural stability, lifespan characteristics, and stability and operability of the positive electrode active material at high temperatures are pertinent to Cho’s disclosure (Cho [0009]; [0124]).
Park/739 (US20180233739A1), analogous as a lithium transition metal oxide particle comprising a concentration gradient where Co decreases from the surface towards the center (Park/739 [0054]), where the particle has the general formula LiaNi1−x−yCoxM1yM2zM3wO2 ([0021]), teaches various advantages from doping the particle with dopants M1, M2, and M3 as discussed below.
M1 may be Al, Mg, Y, Zn, In, and Mn, where Mgβ″ is claimed in the Formula 3 composition. M1 is provided to improve the lifespan and high-temperature characteristics of the battery (Park/739 [0032]), and is already contained as Al in modified Cho’s positive electrode active material Li0.99Ni0.01Ni0.84Co0.14Al0.02O2 (Cho [0086] in view of Xie).
As Park/739 teaches Al, Mg, Y, Zn, In, and Mn as substitutable equivalents for the same purpose of improving lifespan and high-temperature characteristics in a positive electrode active material composition it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art use Al in combination with Mg, Y, Zn, In, or Mn for the same purpose in modified Cho’s positive electrode active material (MPEP 2144.06). Additionally, as Park/739 teaches a finite set of M1 elements as identified, predictable solutions to improve lifespan/high-temperature characteristics, it would be obvious for a skilled artisan to explore selecting Mg as the component for combination with A1 with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143 I. E)
Consequently, a skilled artisan would form Cho’s positive electrode active material with the formula Li0.99Na0.01Ni0.84Co0.14Al0.02-β′’Mgβ′’O2, where β″, being a substitution of Al0.02, is limited to a range of 0<β″<0.02. This encompasses the claimed ranges 0<β″≤0.005 in Formula 3 of claim 1 and 0<β″≤0.003 in claims 5 and 11 such that it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to use at least a portion of the claimed ranges in seeking the improvements to lifespan/high-temperature characteristics taught by Park/739 (MPEP 2144.05 I).
M2 in Park/739 is preferably one of Ti or Zr, where Tiγ″ is claimed in the Formula 3 composition (Park/739 [0035]), and is provided substituting a portion of Ni, Co, or M1 to improve the output and lifespan characteristics of the lithium transition metal oxide particle ([0036]). Preferably, a concentration of M2 is at least 0 to provide the above improvements, and 0.02 or less to avoid impacting the stability and internal structure of the lithium transition metal oxide ([0036]).
As such, in seeking to improve the output and lifespan characteristics of modified Cho’s lithium transition metal oxide particles, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to dope the particles with M2 as taught by Park/739. Furthermore, as Park/739 identifies Ti or Zr as the most preferable solutions to improve the output and lifespan characteristics, it would be obvious for a skilled artisan to explore selecting Ti as the component for combination with A1 with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143 I. E).
In seeking to balance improving these characteristics without impacting the stability and internal structure, it would further be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize a Ti content γ″ within a range of 0<γ″≤0.02 according to Park/739’s teaching, this range encompassing the ranges 0<γ″≤0.005 in Formula 3 of claim 1 and 0<γ”≤0.003 in claims 5 and 11 such that a skilled artisan would have selected within the encompassed ranges through routine optimization (MPEP 2144.05 II), thus rendering claim 5 obvious.
Park/739 teaches selecting W as M3 for purposes of improving lifespan and output characteristics at high temperatures ([0038-0039], [0164-0165]), where Wα” is recited as a constituent of Formula 3 in claim 1. A concentration of W as M3 is at least 0.002 to sufficiently improve the lifespan and output characteristics, and less than 0.1 to avoid impacting the surface stability of the lithium transition metal oxide particle ([0039]).
As such, in seeking to improve the lifespan and output characteristics at high temperatures of modified Cho’s lithium transition metal oxide particles, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to dope the particles with W as taught by Park/739. In seeking to balance improving these characteristics without impacting the surface stability, it would further be obvious to optimize a W content α” within a range of 0.002≤ α” ≤0.1 according to Park/739’s teaching, overlapping with a portion of the range 0<α″≤0.01 claimed in claim 1 between 0.002≤α”≤0.01 such that a skilled artisan would have selected within the overlap through routine optimization (MPEP 2144.05 II).
The above modifications to dope Cho’s lithium transition metal oxide particle with Al, Ti and W in the respective concentration ranges would be done with a reasonable expectation of success, as Park/739 teaches their suitability in a comparable lithium transition metal oxide particle analogously comprising Ni and a Co concentration gradient.
Consequently, a skilled artisan would form modified Cho’s positive electrode active material with the approximate formula Li0.99Na0.01Ni0.84Co0.14Al0.02-β′’WαMgβ′’Tiγ″O2.
While modified Cho fails to further disclose substitution of a” parts O2 with Sa″ as claimed in Formula 3 of claim 1, it is nonetheless pertinent to one of ordinary skill in the art that Ni-based positive electrode active materials (e.g., modified Cho) are prone to poor reversible capacity and cycle life (Cho [0045]). Park/NPL (“Synthesis and electrochemical properties of lithium nickel oxysulfide […]”), directed to a Ni positive electrode active material LiNiO2, teaches significant improvements to capacity retention rates of the material through substituting y parts O with Sy in LiNiO2-ySy (Park/NPL, abstract). Park/NPL finds improvements in capacity retention rates over a range from y=0 in LiNiO2 to y=0.03, but conversely, the initial capacity of the material decreases with increased sulfur substitution (Park, pp. 1726 § “Conclusions”).
As such, in seeking to improve the capacity retention rate of modified Cho’s positive electrode active material, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to substitute a” parts O2 with Sa″ as taught by Park/NPL. It would further be obvious according to Park/NPL’s teachings to balance the capacity retention rate and initial capacity of the material through optimizing the sulfur concentration a” within a range of 0≤a”≤0.03, this range encompassing the range 0<a″≤0.01 claimed in claim 1 such that a skilled artisan would have selected within the encompassed range through routine optimization (MPEP 2144.05 II). Such a modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success because Park/NPL teaches the suitability thereof in a Ni-based lithium transition metal oxide, with a similar composition and material consideration to modified Cho’s material (Cho [0045]).
In performing the above modifications and optimizations, a skilled artisan would produce modified Cho’s positive electrode active material represented in Formula 3 of clam 1:
[Formula 3] Li1−x″Nax″Niy1″Coy2″Aly3″Wα″Mgβ″Tiγ″O2−a″Sa″,
where, 0<x″≤0.01 (x”=0.01; see Xie); where 0<α″≤0.01 (0.002≤ α”≤0.1), 0<β″≤0.005, 0<γ″≤0.005 (see Park/739); where 0<a″≤0.01 (see Park/NPL); where 0<α″+β″+γ″≤0.02 (0.002< α″+β″+γ″≤0.02; see Park/739); where 0.73≤y1″<1 (y1” is approx. 0.84), 0<y2″≤0.2 (y2” is approx. 0.14), 0<y3″≤0.05 (y3” is approx. 0.02-β”) and y1″+y2″+y3″+α″+β″=1 (see Cho and Park/739);
thus overlapping with and rendering obvious a portion of the compositions claimed in Formula 3 of claim 1.
Additionally, in further optimizing β″ between 0<β″≤0.003 and γ” between 0<γ″≤0.003 according to limitations of claim 11 (see discussion of Park/739 above), a value of α″+β″+γ″ in modified Cho’s material ranges from 0.002< α″+β″+γ″≤0.016, overlapping with this portion in the range of 0<α″+β″+γ″≤0.016 claimed in claim 11 and thus rendering claim 11 obvious (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Regarding claim 2, modified Cho discloses the positive electrode active material of claim 1, wherein the concentration gradient region has a concentration of Ni atoms increasing from the surface toward the center of the lithium transition metal oxide particle (Cho [0105-0106]; FIG. 4b)
Regarding claim 3, modified Cho discloses the positive electrode active material of claim 1. In Cho’s experimental example (see Cho FIG. 4b), the concentration gradient region extends from approximately 25 nm inward from the surface of the positive electrode active material particle (marked at 25 nm in FIG. 4b). Thus, the concentration gradient region comprises a region up to a distance of 500 nm (i.e., a region of less than or equal to 500 nm) from the surface toward the center of the lithium transition metal oxide particle.
Regarding claim 12, modified Cho discloses the positive electrode active material of claim 1 wherein an average particle diameter (D50) of the lithium transition metal oxide is 3 μm to 25 μm (Cho [0016]), this range overlapping appreciably closely with the range of 0.1 µm to about 20 µm claimed in claim 12 between 3-20 µm such that a skilled artisan seeking to produce modified Cho’s positive electrode active material would routinely have selected within the overlap with a reasonable expectation of successfully producing the material (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Regarding claim 13, modified Cho discloses the positive electrode active material of claim 1. Cho provides the phosphorus-containing coating layer in order to remove residual lithium and stabilize the SEI of the positive electrode active material, where the phosphorus-containing coating layer comprises LiaPbOc where 0≤a≤1, 0<b≤2, and 0<c≤5 (Cho [0038]), this composition overlapping with a portion of Formula 5 of claim 13 (LiaPbOc, where 0<a≤3, 0<b≤1, and 0<c≤4) between 0<a≤1, 0<b≤1, and 0<c≤4.
As such, a skilled artisan seeking to provide these benefits in modified Cho’s active material with the phosphorus-containing coating layer would reasonably select a compound within the portion overlapping with Formula 5 of claim 13 (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Regarding claim 14, modified Cho discloses the positive electrode active material of claim 1, wherein the phosphorus-containing coating layer has a thickness of about 20-40 nm (Cho FIG. 4(b), the phosphorus-containing coating layer extending between about 0nm distance to 25 nm in figure; [0013]), and thus comprises a thickness of about 250 nm or less.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (KR-20180133141-A), Xie, Park/739 (US-20180233739-A1), and Park/NPL as applied to claim 1, further in view of Jiang et al. (CN-109962234-A; cited with machine translation, 05/05/2025 Office action):
Regarding claims 8, 9, modified Cho discloses the positive electrode active material of claim 1. Cho’s experimental example is formed as a secondary particle (Cho FIG. 1(d), [0096]); while Cho is not necessarily limited to this structure (“can be formed in the form of secondary particles”; [0051]), Cho fails to expressly disclose the lithium transition metal oxide as a single particle in claim 8 or a single crystal in claim 9.
However, considerations of structural stability, lifespan characteristics, and thermal stability are pertinent to Cho’s disclosure (Cho [0009]; [0124]). Jiang (CN109962234A) is directed to an analogous lithium transition metal oxide particle comprising a Co concentration gradient decreasing from a surface towards a center of the particle (Jiang [0066]), and teaches forming the particle as a single particle being a single crystal ([0065]). Single crystal materials with a concentration gradient offer improved cycle life and thermal stability through being more resistant to particle breakage than secondary particle materials, even materials also comprising a concentration gradient (e.g., modified Cho) ([0039]).
As such, in seeking to improve the thermal stability and cycle life of modified Cho’s positive electrode active material, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to form the lithium transition metal oxide as a single crystal material according to Jiang’s teaching, thus reading on claim 9 and on claim 8 (a single crystal necessarily being a single particle as claimed). Such a modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as Jiang’s material, analogous to Cho, is a Ni-based active material LiNi0.88Mn0.03Co0.09O2 (Jiang [0063]) having a Co gradient; thus, both materials would be subject to similarly applicable material considerations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant has amended the claims to include limitations of claim 10 in claim 1 and cancel claims 7 and 10, these claims being subject to rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 (d) in the final Office action filed 11/14/2025. Previously, claim 1 recited a lithium transition metal oxide represented by the formula Li1-xNaxM1-(α+β+γ)WαMgβTiγO2-aSa wherein “M is Ni, Co, and at least one element selected from Mn, Al, V, Ca, Zr, B, and P”. Claim 7 did not positively recite the selection of both Ni, Co, and at least one of Mn or Al as required by claim 1, and claim 10 recited the positive electrode active material represented by one of Formulas 2-4, Formula 4 being Li1−x′″Nax′″Niy1′″Coy2′″_Wα′″Mgβ′″Tiγ′″O2−a′″Sa′, which did not positively recite at least one element from the group in addition to Ni and Co.
Applicant amendment has cancelled limitations of claim 1 reciting the formula Li1-xNaxM1-(α+β+γ)WαMgβTiγO2-aSa and element M and cancelled claims 7 and 10, thus placing the limitations of the previously filed claim 10 in proper dependent form.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejection of claims 1-3, 8-9, and 12-14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Jiang et al. (CN-109962234-A), Hiroka et al. (JP-2015118898-A), and Hou et al. (“Surface/Interfacial Structure and Chemistry of High-Energy Nickel-Rich Layered Oxide Cathodes: Advances and Perspectives”) (Remarks pp. 8-10) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVERETT T CHOI whose telephone number is (703)756-1331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11:00-8:00.
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, Jonathan G Leong can be reached on (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.
/E.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 5/7/2026
Prosecution Insights