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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 17, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that the rejection improperly conflates bulk concentration and grain boundary concentration, and that grain boundary concentration must be confirmed by techniques that were not used by cited references (pp. 3-4). This is incorrect. The rejection states that increased concentration at the grain boundary is a necessary result of combining the teachings of Kim and Li, as confirmed by the instant specification.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant contends that one of ordinary skill in the art could not have predicted the increased grain boundary concentration (pp. 5-6). The method of Li requires adding Sb after the formation of the primary particles, which would necessarily leave more Sb at the surface unless Sb has extremely high mobility within the lattice or heating is performed with sufficient time to allow for full equilibration, neither of which is a reasonable assumption. However, this is irrelevant, as overcoming a prima facie obviousness argument requires evidence that the results are unexpected and significant. See MPEP 716.02(b). The result of adding Sb to the particles is increased cyclability, as taught by Kim, so it is not unexpected. Superficial structural details of the material that have not been shown to contribute to the actual desired result, i.e. battery performance, are not considered significant.
The declaration submitted July 17, 2026, reiterates these points and is not persuasive.
The rejections are maintained.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-10, 12, 14-16, 20 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (“Microstructure-Controlled Ni-Rich Cathode Material by Microscale Compositional Partition for Next-Generation Electric Vehicles”, Advanced Energy Materials 9(15), 1803902, February 2019) in view of Li et al. (“Towards superior cyclability of LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 cathode material for lithium ion batteries via synergetic effects of Sb modification”, Journal of Alloys and Compounds 798, pp. 93-103, August 2019).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a positive electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery comprising secondary particles made of primary particles elongated in shape (i.e. with a long axis and a short axis) (Kim p. 6, top of second column). The primary particles can be seen to have a short axis (i.e. grain size) of approximately 0.1-0.2 µm (Kim Fig. 5), which falls within the range of the instant claim.
Kim does not teach that heteroatoms are present at the grain boundaries of the particles. Li teaches that adding 0.5 mol% Sb2O3 to the hydroxide precursor particles during lithiation improves cyclability and lithium-ion mobility (Li Conclusions). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to add Sb2O3 to the lithiation step of Kim in order to improve cyclability and lithium-ion mobility. Applicant has indicated that this will result in more antimony at the grain boundaries than in the particle interiors ([00392] of the instant specification) and reduced agglomeration of the primary particles when calcining at temperatures above 700 °C ([00401] of the instant specification).
The heteroatom is present at 0.5 mol% (Li Conclusions), which falls within the range of the instant claim. Since more antimony will be present at the grain boundaries, the concentration at the grain boundaries will necessarily be more than 0.5 mol%.
Regarding claim 2, the particles have average angle of 2.5° (see extension lines added to Fig 5e of Kim below), which falls within the range of the instant claim.
PNG
media_image1.png
300
307
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, the particles extend radially from the center, so the distance between extension lines and parallel lines radiating from the center of the particle is substantially less than 1µm (see extension lines added Fig 5e of Kim above), which falls within the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 5, approximately 100% of the primary particles in the outer 50% of the secondary particle are radially oriented (see Kim Fig 5e), which falls within the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 6, the secondary particles have a diameter of 11 µm (Kim Results and Discussion, first paragraph), so 40% of the distance from the outer surface to the center is 2.2 µm, which falls within the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 7, lithium diffuses in a direction corresponding to the long axis (Kim Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, the primary particles have a short axis of approximately 0.1-0.2 µm and a long axis of approximately 1 µm (Kim Fig. 5e), for a typical aspect ratio of 5-10, which falls within the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 9, the secondary particles have a diameter of 11 µm (Kim Results and Discussion, first paragraph), which falls within the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 10, modified Kim teaches the use of Sb (Li Conclusions).
Regarding claim 12, the material of modified Kim is made by calcining a lithium compound (LiOH) with an NCM-based composite metal hydroxide (Kim Experimental Section, 2nd paragraph), and the Sb2O3 is added at the same time as the lithium hydroxide (Li 2.1. Samples synthesis).
Regarding claim 14, the material is made by calcining a lithium compound (LiOH) with an NCM-based composite metal hydroxide (Kim Experimental Section, 2nd paragraph).
Regarding claim 15, the NCM-based composite metal hydroxide is made by co-precipitation of Ni, Co, and Mn (Kim Experimental Section, 2nd paragraph) with a concentration gradient from the core to the outer surface (Kim Abstract).
Regarding claim 16, Kim teaches a pouch-type lithium secondary battery comprising a positive electrode with the positive electrode active material, a negative electrode comprising graphite, and an electrolyte solution comprising a lithium salt (LiPF6 in EC/EMC) (Kim Experimental Section, Electrochemical Test). This configuration necessarily includes a separator between the electrodes.
Regarding claim 20, modified Kim gives an example that does not have a concentration gradient throughout the secondary particle (CC90; Kim 4. Experimental Section).
Regarding claim 21, the concentration of the heteroatom at the grain boundary is greater than 0.5 mol%, which overlaps the range of the instant claim. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Alternatively, modified Kim teaches that cyclability improves with increasing antimony concentration (Li Fig. 6 and Table 3). Antimony concentration is therefore a recognized result effective variable. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select an appropriate antimony concentration, including values within the range of the instant claim, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See, e.g., In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Li as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (“Minimization of the cation mixing in Li1+x(NMC)1−xO2 as cathode material”, Journal of Power Sources 195(5), pp. 1292-1301, March 2010).
Regarding claim 13, the material has a crystal structure with alternating layers of lithium and transition metals (Kim Fig. 1) with a doping region (Li Fig. 1).
Zhang teaches that swapping of lithium and nickel atoms (cation mixing) is unavoidable in such layered transition metal oxides (Zhang Introduction). The TM layer must therefore necessarily include some lithium, and the lithium layer must therefore necessarily include some transition metal.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Li as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Susai et al. ("Improving Performance of LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 Cathode Materials for Lithium-Ion Batteries by Doping with Molybdenum-Ions: Theoretical and Experimental Studies," ACS Applied Energy Materials 2(6), pp. 4521-4534, May 2019).
Regarding claim 19, modified Kim does not teach the use of a molybdenum heteroatom. Susai teaches that adding a molybdenum heteroatom to NCM active materials, with increased concentrations on the surface, decreases capacity loss and increases capacity and rate capability (Susai Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use a molybdenum heteroatom in the NCM material of modified Kim to decrease capacity loss and increase capacity and rate capability.
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 JAMES A CORNO JR whose telephone number is (571)270-0745. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571) 272-3433. 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.
/J.A.C/ Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
