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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 22, 2025 has been entered.
Summary
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments submitted December 22, 2025 have been entered into the file. Currently, claim 6 is cancelled, claim 1 is amended, and claims 10-18 are withdrawn from consideration, resulting in claims 1-5 and 7-9 pending for examination.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 5, and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek (US 2021/0151754 A1) in view of Chae (US 2020/0335787 A1), Oh (2018/0351169 A1), and Woo (US 2022/0263074 A1), as evidenced by Beauvoir (Beauvoir, T. H. et al. Translucent y-AlOOH and y-Al2O3 glass-ceramics using the cold sintering process. Scripta Materialia. 194, 113650. Available online December 2, 2020).
Regarding claim 1, Baek teaches a cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery (positive electrode active material for a secondary battery, Baek title) formed using a heat treatment process (Baek [54]) comprising: a core portion comprising a lithium metal oxide (Baek abstract) and a coating layer at least partially covering a surface of the core portion including a lithium boron composite oxide and an aluminum compound (lithium-boron-aluminum oxide, Baek [38]) and that the coating layer improves thermal stability, reduces the amount of lithium by-products, improves high-temperature life characteristics, and suppresses gas generation during high-temperature storage (Baek [37]). Baek teaches that Al(OH)3 is a suitable aluminum source for the coating (Baek [51]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select Al(OH)3 as the aluminum source for the coating of Baek.
Baek teaches the temperature of the heating treatment used to form the coating being 500°C to 750°C (Baek [54]). However, Beauvoir teaches that heat treatment of 500°C induces transformation into Al2O3 (Beauvoir abstract, pg. 2 paragraph 2).
Woo teaches a cathode material for lithium secondary batteries that includes a core containing a lithium composite metal oxide and a coating layer disposed on the core (Woo abstract). Woo further teaches the coating layer being formed using a heat treatment process (Woo [48-49]), as taught by Baek. Woo teaches the heating temperature being preferably 200°C to 500°C and that if the temperature is too low adhesion to the core particle is deteriorated and if the temperature is too high there are difficulties forming a uniform coating (Woo [49]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the heating temperature of Baek for a temperature of 200°C to 500 °C (Baek [49]), thus resulting in the aluminum compound comprising at least one compound of AlOOH and Al(OH)3, in order to obtain sufficient adhesion and a uniform coating.
Baek does not explicitly teach an embodiment in which the stoichiometric amount of Ni is greater than or equal to 0.7 and less than or equal to 0.96.
However, Baek teaches that the stoichiometric amount of Ni is 1-(x1 + y1+ z1) wherein 0 < x1 ≤ 0.4, 0 < y1 ≤ 0.4, 0 < z1 ≤ 0.1, and 0 < x1+ y1+ z1 ≤ 0.4. (Baek claim 6). For example, x1, y1, and z1 could each be 0.1, which would result in a stoichiometric amount of Ni being 0.7 (1 - 0.1 - 0.1 = 0.7).
The Ni stochiometric amount range of Baek substantially overlaps the claimed range in the instant claim 1. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Baek, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Baek teaches the coating layer including 500 ppm boron (Baek Example 3). Baek is silent regarding the amount of lithium boron composite oxide based on a total weight of the cathode active material.
Chae teaches a cathode active material for use in secondary batteries (Chae title) comprising lithium metal oxide particles coated with lithium boron oxide (surface coating portion, Chai [11]) that contains boron in an amount of 100-1,000 ppm based on the total weight of the cathode active material in order to improve thermal stability and capacity (Chae [72]) and reduce the amount of lithium by-products (Chae [113]), wherein the cathode active material is synthesized using a heat treatment process (Chae [71]).
Oh teaches a cathode active material for use in secondary batteries (Oh title) comprising lithium metal oxide particles coated with lithium boron oxide (Oh abstract) in order to improve capacity retention and output characteristics (Oh [114-117]) and reduce the amount of lithium by-products (lithium impurities, Oh [34]), wherein the cathode active material is synthesized using a heat treatment process (Oh abstract). Oh further teaches that the “coating layer may be formed in which the lithium boron oxide is uniformly coated on the surface of the lithium transition metal oxide in an amount proportional to the used amount of the boron-containing compound” (Oh [20]).
Since Baek teaches an embodiment in which the boron content is 500 ppm of the coating layer, Chae teaches that the amount of boron should be within the range of 100-1,000 ppm based on the total weight of the cathode active material, and Oh teaches that the amount of lithium boron oxide in the coating layer is proportional to the amount of boron-containing compound used, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to tune the boron amount within the coating layer, which consequently tunes the amount of lithium boron composite oxide, to obtain a lithium boron composite oxide amount within the claimed range of 100 to 1,500 ppm to achieve suitable high-temperature stability and capacity.
Regarding claim 5, Baek in view of Chae, Oh, and Woo, as evidenced by Beauvoir, teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Baek further teaches the lithium boron composite oxide comprising at least one amorphous compound selected from LiBO2, Li2BO2, Li2B4O7, Li2B8O13, and Li3BO3 (Baek [9-11, 82]).
Regarding claim 7, Baek in view of Chae, Oh, and Woo, as evidenced by Beauvoir, teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Baek teaches a cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery, wherein the lithium metal oxide comprises Li, Ni, Co, Mn, and O (Baek claim 6). The examiner notes that f can be 0 in Chemical Formula 2 of instant claim 7; therefore, the presence of M2 is not required.
Baek does not explicitly teach an embodiment in which the stoichiometric amount of Ni is greater than or equal to 0.7 and less than or equal to 0.96.
However, Baek teaches that the stoichiometric amount of Ni is 1-(x1 + y1+ z1) wherein 0 < x1 ≤ 0.4, 0 < y1 ≤ 0.4, 0 < z1 ≤ 0.1, and 0 < x1+ y1+ z1 ≤ 0.4. (Baek claim 6). For example, x1, y1, and z1 could each be 0.1, which would result in a stoichiometric amount of Ni being 0.7 (1 - 0.1 - 0.1 = 0.7).
The Ni stochiometric amount range of Baek substantially overlaps the claimed range in the instant claim 7. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Baek, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Regarding claim 8, Baek in view of Chae, Oh, and Woo, as evidenced by Beauvoir, teaches all features of claims 1 and 7, as described above. The examiner notes that f can be 0 in Chemical Formula 2 of instant claim 7; therefore, the presence of M2 is not required.
Regarding claim 9, Baek in view of Chae, Oh, and Woo, as evidenced by Beauvoir, teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Modified Baek further teaches a lithium secondary battery (Baek Claim 19) comprising: a cathode comprising the cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery of claim 1 (Baek Claim 19); and an anode facing the cathode (Baek Claim 19).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek in view of Chae, Oh, and Woo, as evidenced by Beauvoir, as applied to instant claim 1 above, and in further view of Shin (US 2018/0287135 A1).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Baek in view of Chae, Oh, and Woo, as evidenced by Beauvoir, teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Baek is silent regarding how much of the surface area of the core portion is covered by the coating layer.
However, Shin teaches a cathode active material for use in secondary batteries comprising a core particle made of a lithium composite metal oxide and a surface treatment layer (coating layer) including lithium boron oxide (Shin Example 1-1), as taught by Baek and Chae, that aims to improve capacity and life characteristics (Shin [12]). Shin further teaches that the coating layer comprising lithium boron oxide may be formed on the entire surface of the core portion or may be formed on 25% to 100% of a total surface area of the core portion (Shin [40]) in order to achieve the desired improvements in performance due to the coating layer.
Since Baek and Shin both teach the addition of a coating layer including lithium boron oxide to lithium metal oxide particles for use as a cathode active material for secondary batteries, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have fabricated a cathode active material, as taught by Baek, wherein the coating layer covers 70% or more or 90% or more of a total surface area of the core portion, in order to achieve a cathode active material with desired performance.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek in view of Chae, Oh, and Woo, as evidenced by Beauvoir, as applied to instant claim 1 above, and in further view of Chakraborty (Chakraborty, A., et al. Layered Cathode Materials for Lithium-Ion Batteries: Review of Computational Studies on LiNi1−x−yCoxMnyO2 and LiNi1−x−yCoxAlyO. Chemistry of Materials. 32, 3, 913-1342 (2020).
Regarding claim 4, Baek in view of Chae, Oh, and Woo, as evidenced by Beauvoir, teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Chakraborty teaches that nickel cobalt manganese oxide materials commonly used as lithium ion cathode active materials are layered (Chakraborty Abstract). Since Chakraborty teaches that nickel cobalt manganese oxide materials used in lithium ion batteries are layered, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a lithium metal oxide particle having a layered structure in the cathode active material of Baek in order to obtain a cathode active material suitable for use in lithium secondary batteries.
Response to Arguments
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mayumi (US 2023/0052866 A1): appears to disclose a lithium metal oxide cathode active material (positive electrode active material, Mayumi abstract, Table 1) and that the order in which elements are added may be tuned to achieve a cathode active material with desired gradients and presence of elements are different depths (Mayumi [376-377]).
Du (US 2019/0044135 A1): appears to disclose positive electrode active materials comprising a lithium metal oxide coated with aluminum oxide and boron oxide (Example 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA S CASERTO whose telephone number is (571)272-5114. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 5 pm ET.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached on 571-270-7692. 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.S.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights