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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 4, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received May 4, 2026:
Claims 1, 3 and 5-12 are pending. Claims 2 and 4 have been cancelled as per applicant’s request.
The core of the previous rejection is maintained with slight changes made in light of the amendment. All changes to the rejection are necessitated by the amendment.
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, 5-7, 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (US 2019/0214639) in view of Park et al. (US 2020/0212423) and Zhang et al. (US 2019/0051893).
Regarding Claim 1, Cho et al. teaches a positive active material for a rechargeable lithium battery (Para. [0006]) comprising a large-sized lithium cobalt-based oxide (Para. [0093]) (i.e. a first positive active material comprising a lithium cobalt-based oxide) comprising wherein the lithium cobalt-based oxide has a chemical formula including M1 (Para. [0020]) which may be Al (Para. [0021]) wherein M1 is doped in the cobalt site of the oxide particles (Para. [0027]) (i.e. doped with aluminum) and comprises a surface layer including Zr (Para. [0033]) formed by a coating process (Para. [0096]) (i.e. and coated with zirconium) wherein the average particle diameter D50 is about 15 micrometers (Para. [0093]) and comprising small-sized Li1.025Co0.9773Mg0.01Al0.0127O2 (i.e. a second positive active material of Chemical Formula 2 comprising a lithium cobalt-based oxide doped with aluminum and coated with zirconium, a doping amount of aluminum based on a total weight of the lithium cobalt-based oxide is about 0.35 wt% [using the formula (0.0127 mol*26.98 g/ mol)/(total molecular weight or 97.29g)] wherein the average particle diameter D50 is about 4.5 micrometers (Para. [0093]) (i.e. wherein a particle diameter of the second positive active material is smaller than a particle diameter of the first positive active material) wherein the surface layer including Zr as a first element (Para. [0034]).
Cho et al. does not teach in the first positive active material, a doping amount of aluminum based on a total weight of the lithium cobalt-based oxide is about 0.50 wt% to about 0.80 wt% nor a coating amount of zirconium based on a total weight of the positive active material is about 0.10 wt% to about 0.15 wt%.
However, Park et al. teaches a cobalt-based first positive electrode active material (Para. [0013], Formula 1) having a particle diameter of 10 micrometers or more (Para. [0038]) wherein the first positive electrode active material comprises a doping element M1 which includes aluminum (Para. [0014], [0016]), the doping element being included in an amount of 100 to 10,000 ppm (Para. [0063]), e.g. 5,500 ppm or 0.55 wt% (i.e. 0.01 wt% to 1%, overlapping with the claimed doping amount of aluminum based on a total weight of the lithium cobalt-based oxide is about 0.50 wt% to about 0.80 wt%).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the doping amount of the first positive electrode active material of Cho et al. to incorporate the teaching of a doping amount of aluminum as taught by Park et al., as such a doping amount provides improved structural stability and lifetime of the battery (Para. [0063]). 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).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Cho et al. does not teach the lithium cobalt-based oxide of the first positive active material is represented by Chemical Formula 1 of the instant claim.
However, Park et al. further teaches a cobalt-based first positive electrode active material (Para. [0013], Formula 1) having a particle diameter of 10 micrometers or more (Para. [0038]) wherein the first positive electrode active material is represented by Formula 1 which is LiCo1-aM1aO2 (Para. [0031]) wherein M1 includes aluminum and 0≤a≤0.2 (Para. [0032]) (and thus, at the very least overlapping with Chemical Formula 1 of the instant claim, as the Formula 1 of Park et al. may be LiCo0.98Al0.02O2, wherein a1 = 1, x1 = 0.98, y1 = 0.02, z1 = 0 and b1 = 0).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the large-sized active material of Cho et al. to incorporate the teaching of the composition as taught by Park et al., as such a composition would provide a structurally stable positive electrode active material, and increased volume capacity of the battery (Para. [0064])
Cho et al. as modified by Park et al. does not teach a coating amount of zirconium based on a total weight of the positive active material is about 0.10 wt% to about 0.15 wt%.
However, Zhang et al. teaches a positive electrode material comprising a coating wherein the content of the element Zr in the positive electrode material is for example 1000 ppm (Para. [0053]) (i.e. 0.10 wt%) or 1500 ppm (Para. [0054]) (i.e. 0.15 wt%) (i.e. teaches examples within the claimed range of a coating amount of zirconium based on a total weight of the positive active material is about 0.10 wt% to about 0.15 wt%.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the surface layer of Cho et al. containing Zr to incorporate the teaching of a coating amount of zirconium based on a total weight of the positive active material of 0.10 wt% or 0.15 wt%, as such an amount could suppress C-axis change during delithiation (Para. [0015]) providing a stabilized positive electrode material structure and avoiding irreversible transformation of the crystal structure at high operation voltage (Para. [0014]).
Regarding Claim 5, Cho et al. as modified by Park et al. and Zhang et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Cho et al. further teaches the large-sized positive active material (i.e. the first positive active material) having an average particle diameter D50 of 15 micrometers (Para. [0093]), within the claimed range of about 13 to 25 micrometers.
Regarding Claim 6, Cho et al. as modified by Park et al. and Zhang et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Cho et al. further teaches the small-sized positive active material (i.e. the second positive active material) having an average particle diameter D50 of 4.5 micrometers (Para. [0093]), within the claimed range of about 2 to 6 micrometers.
Regarding Claim 7, Cho et al. as modified by Park et al. and Zhang et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Cho et al. further teaches the large-sized positive active material (i.e. the first positive active material) having an average particle diameter D50 of 15 micrometers (Para. [0093]) (i.e. a = 15) and the small-sized positive active material (i.e. the second positive active material) having an average particle diameter D50 of 4.5 micrometers (Para. [0093]) (i.e. b = 4.5), and thus, satisfies the claimed average particle diameter relationship of 3b≤a≤4b, as 13.5≤15≤18.
Regarding Claim 9, Cho et al. as modified by Park et al. and Zhang et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above
Cho et al. further teaches a positive electrode slurry comprising the small and large particles coated on an Al foil (i.e. a positive active material layer wherein the positive active material layer comprises the positive active material of claim 1, and a current collector [Al foil] wherein a positive active material layer is on the current collector) to fabricate a positive electrode (Para. [0094]) for a rechargeable lithium battery (Para. [0008]) (i.e. a positive electrode for a rechargeable lithium battery).
Regarding Claim 12, Cho et al. as modified by Park et al. and Zhang et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 9 as explained above
Cho et al. further teaches a positive electrode for a rechargeable lithium battery (i.e. a rechargeable lithium battery comprising the positive electrode of claim 9), a negative electrode and an electrolyte solution (i.e. electrolyte) (Para. [0008]).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (US 2019/0214639) in view of Park et al. (US 2020/0212423) and Zhang et al. (US 2019/0051893) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Kitada et al. (US 2021/0288322).
Regarding Claim 10, Cho et al. as modified by Park et al. and Zhang et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 9 as explained above
Cho et al. as modified by Park et al. and Zhang et al. does not teach the positive electrode has a loading level of about 15 mg/cm2 to about 25 mg/cm2.
However, Kitada et al. teaches a positive electrode using a lithium-cobalt composite oxide (Para. [0041]) wherein the area density of the positive electrode is 20 mg/cm2 to 50 mg/cm2 (i.e. a loading level of the positive electrode overlapping with the claimed range of about 15 mg/cm2 to about 25 mg/cm2) (Para. [0245]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positive electrode of Cho et al. to incorporate the teaching of the area density as taught by Kitada et al., as such a loading level makes it easier to satisfy a degree of durability, such that occurrence of a crack in a positive electrode is suppressed even if the battery swells during charging (Para. [0222]). 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).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 11, Cho et al. as modified by Park et al. and Zhang et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 9 as explained above
Cho et al. as modified by Park et al. and Zhang et al. does not teach the positive electrode has a mixture density of about 3.8 g/cc to about 4.2 g/cc.
However, Kitada et al. teaches a positive electrode using a lithium-cobalt composite oxide (Para. [0041]) wherein the volume density is from 3.5 g/cm3 to 4.3 g/cm3 (i.e. a mixture density of the positive electrode overlapping with the claimed range of about 3.8 g/cc to about 4.2 g/cc) (Para. [0245]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positive electrode of Cho et al. to incorporate the teaching of the volume density as taught by Kitada et al., as such a loading level makes it easier to satisfy a degree of durability, such that occurrence of a crack in a positive electrode is suppressed even if the battery swells during charging (Para. [0222]). 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).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (US 2019/0214639) in view of Park et al. (US 2020/0212423) and Zhang et al. (US 2019/0051893) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Choi et al. (US 2006/0257745).
Regarding Claim 8, Cho et al. as modified by Park et al. and Zhang et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Cho et al. does not teach the first positive active material in an amount of about 60 wt% to about 90 wt% and the second positive active material is in an amount of about 10 wt% to about 40 wt% based on a total amount of the first positive active material and the second positive active material.
However, Choi et al. teaches a composite cathode active material comprising large diameter cathode active material (i.e. a first positive electrode active material) and a small diameter cathode active material (i.e. a second positive electrode active material) which may be a lithium cobalt-based oxide (Para. [0031]) wherein the weight ratio of the large to the small diameter active material ranges from 60:40 to 90:10 (Para. [0034]) (i.e. the first positive active material is in an amount within the claimed range of about 60 wt% to about 90 wt%, and the second positive active material is in an amount within the claimed range of about 10 wt% to about 40 wt% based on a total amount of the first positive active material and the second positive active material).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first and second positive electrode active materials of Cho et al. to incorporate the teaching of the large to the small diameter active material weight ratio, as it would increase the final packing ratio of the particles, providing a high packing density (Para. [0034]], providing improved volume density, resulting in batteries with improved volume capacities and improved charge/discharge characteristics (Para. [0038]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 4, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims require differences in first large particles doped with higher Al concentration than the second small particles and Cho only teaches uniform doping which corresponds to Comparative Examples, Park does not remedy the deficiencies of Cho.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that Park does not teach the Al concentration differences and Park does not remedy the deficiencies of Cho as the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). As the combined teaches of Park and Cho would provide the differences in Al concentration as explained above in section 6, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues none of the Park examples show the aluminum content of the first positive electrode active material (large-diameter particles) and the small-diameter particles are not doped with aluminum and thus, any attempt to arrive at the claimed invention would have to rely on impermissible hindsight and Zhang fails to remedy these deficiencies.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Zhang is not relied upon for aluminum amounts. Park et al. explicitly teaches small-sized Li1.025Co0.9773Mg0.01Al0.0127O2 (Para. [0093]) , within the claimed amount of Chemical Formula 2 wherein the aluminum is doped (Para. [0027]) and thus, it is unclear how the small-diameter particles are not doped with aluminum. Nonetheless, disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. See MPEP § 2123. Park is not relied upon for teaching the aluminum content of the large-diameter particles as explained in the rejection to claim 1 above. 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). As the current rejection of record takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not rely upon knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, no improper hindsight reasoning was used. Thus, the rejection renders obvious the Al concentrations as claimed (i.e. the homogenous LCO-LCO bimodal system referred to) and the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues unexpected results regarding the aluminum doping amounts and that a sufficient number of tests within and outside the claimed ranges demonstrate the criticality of the obtained unexpected results over the entirety of claimed range.
Examiner respectfully disagrees for the same reasons as in the response to arguments mailed March 3, 2026. Applicant has not addressed that there was no demonstration of the upper bounds of the claimed zirconium range and only one value of the Al doping of the second positive electrode active material, nor has the statistical significance been addressed. As these deficiencies and the remainder of the deficiencies noted in the response to arguments mailed March 3, 2026 were not specifically addressed, the Examiner maintains that the requirements of 716.02 have not been met for the same reasons.
Applicant argues that the dependent claims are distinct from the prior art of record for the same reason as the independent claim.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection with respect to the independent claim has been maintained, and thus the rejections to the dependent claims are maintained as well.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARMINDO CARVALHO JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-5292. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30a.m.-5p.m..
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571 272-1481. 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.
/ARMINDO CARVALHO JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights