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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 10, 2026, has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 10, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that weight fraction can be converted to mole fraction, so mol% should be acceptable (p. 9). This is incorrect. Moles are for counting atoms or molecules. The coating material will be some combination of cobalt oxides, hydroxides, oxyhydroxides, and other compounds, giving an average composition which cannot be measured in moles. Weight% is acceptable because it can be measured directly. Mol% or atom% of cobalt would also be acceptable.
The objection is maintained.
The traversal of the rejections under 35 USC 112 (pp. 10-11) appears to have been made in error, since the arguments are copied from the traversal of the objection to claim 12, and the rejections have been remedied by the amendments to claims 2 and 7.
Applicant contends that the term "single particle" does not necessarily require a single crystal particle (p. 11). However, the term as defined by the cited reference explicitly requires the absence of grain boundaries in "single particles" (Kadowaki [0168]) and therefore necessarily describes single crystals.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim refers to a mole fraction of coating material, but the particles are non-stochiometric and cannot be measured in moles. Appropriate correction is required.
For the purpose of examination, the claim will be read as requiring a weight fraction of the coating material.
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the specification refers to a mole fraction of coating material ([0081], [0205], and [0206]), but the particles are non-stochiometric and cannot be measured in moles.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-4, 6, 7, 10, 28, and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kadowaki et al. (US 2020/0313183 A1) in view of Kawasato et al. (US 2015/0380737 A1) and Takei et al. (US 2016/0164094 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kadowaki teaches a cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery (Kadowaki Abstract) comprising a nickel-based lithium oxide containing single-crystal particles (single particles with no grain boundaries; Kadowaki [0168]). Example 6 of Kadowaki comprises a lithiated oxide of Ni91Co7Mn2 (Kadowaki Tables 1 and 2) of the form Li1+x(Ni(1-y-x-w)CoyMnzMw)1-xO2 (Kadowaki Formula 1, [0044]), which corresponds to Formula 1 of the instant claim where M1 is Co and Mn for (1-x-y)=0.91, x=0.09, and y=0, each of which falls within the ranges of the instant claim.
Kadowaki does not teach that a is 0.95-1.1 or that α1 is 0-0.1. Kadowaki teaches that x in Formula 1 is most preferably 0.02-0.1 (Kadowaki [0047]), which corresponds to 1.04<a<1.22 and 0.04<α1<0.22, each of which overlaps the ranges 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). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any value within the disclosed ranges, including values within the ranges of the instant claims.
Kadowaki does not teach any particular intensity ratio. Kawasato teaches that a ratio I003/I104 of 1.24-1.29 improves rate retention in NCM composite oxides (Kawasato [0030]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select a ratio I003/I104 of 1.24-1.29, which falls within the range of the instant claim, for the cathode material of Kadowaki in order to improve rate retention.
Kadowaki does not teach any particular W003. Takei teaches that a W003 of about 0.13-0.15 improves stability in lithium composite oxides (Takei [0065]-[0066]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select a W003 of about 0.13-0.15, which overlaps the range of the instant claim, to improve stability. 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).
Kadowaki does not teach any particular W104. Takei teaches that a W104 of about 0.15-0.18 improves stability in lithium composite oxides (Takei [0065]-[0066]). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties (or results). See MPEP 2144.05 I, citing, e.g., Titanium Metals Co. of Am. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Accord, In re Kirsch, Barnby, and Potts, 182 USPQ 286, 290 (CCPA 1974) (finding that prior art teachings lying slightly outside of a claimed range nevertheless negate non-obviousness, especially in the absence of any criticality statements regarding the claimed range). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any value for W104 close to the range of Takei, including values within the range of the instant claim, to improve the stability of the material.
Regarding claim 2, modified Kadowaki teaches a span of 1.33 (Kadowaki Table 2, Example 6), which falls within the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 3, modified Kadowaki teaches a D50 of 4.13 µm (Kadowaki Table 2, Example 6), which is about 4 µm, which falls within the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 4, modified Kadowaki teaches a D50 of 4.13 µm and a span of 1.33 (Kadowaki Table 2, Example 6), or D90-D10 of 5.5 µm. For a roughly normal distribution, this gives a D10 of approximately 1.4 µm and a D90 of approximately 6.9 µm, each of which falls within the ranges of the instant claim.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select appropriate values of D10 and D90 to achieve the span required by modified Kadowaki, including values within the ranges of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 6, Example 6 of Kadowaki comprises a lithiated oxide of Ni91Co7Mn2 (Kadowaki Tables 1 and 2) of the form Li1+x(Ni(1-y-x-w)CoyMnzMw)1-xO2 (Kadowaki Formula 1, [0044]), which corresponds to Formula 1 of the instant claim for (1-x-y-z)=0.91, x=0.07, and y=0.02 for M3=Mn, and z=0, each of which falls within the ranges of the instant claim.
Modified Kadowaki does not teach that a is 0.95-1.1 or that α1 is 0-0.1. Modified Kadowaki teaches that x in Formula 1 is most preferably 0.02-0.1 (Kadowaki [0047]), which corresponds to 1.04<a<1.22 and 0.04<α1<0.22, each of which overlaps the ranges 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). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any value within the disclosed ranges, including values within the ranges of the instant claims.
Regarding claim 7, the particles have average particle size of 4.13 µm (Kadowaki Table 2, Examples 6), which falls within the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 10, Kadowaki does not teach any particular width ratio. Takei teaches that a W003 or about 0.13-0.15 and a W104 of about 0.15-0.18 (i.e. a ratio W(003/W104 of about 0.72 to about 1) improves stability in lithium composite oxides (Takei [0065]-[0066]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select a ratio W003/W104 of about 0.72 to about 1, which overlaps the range of the instant claim. Note that “about 1” is considered to include both 1.01 and 1.09. 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) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.)
Regarding claim 28, modified Kadowaki teaches a battery comprising the cathode active material, an anode, and an electrolyte between them (Kadowaki [0592]-[0596]).
Regarding claim 29, Kadowaki teaches a cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery (Kadowaki Abstract) comprising a nickel-based lithium oxide containing single-crystal particles (single particles with no grain boundaries; Kadowaki [0168]). Example 6 of Kadowaki comprises a lithiated oxide of Ni91Co7Mn2 (Kadowaki Tables 1 and 2) of the form Li1+x(Ni(1-y-x-w)CoyMnzMw)1-xO2 (Kadowaki Formula 1, [0044]), which corresponds to Formula 1 of the instant claim where M1 is Co and Mn for (1-x-y)=0.91, x=0.09, and y=0, each of which falls within the ranges of the instant claim.
Kadowaki does not teach that a is 0.95-1.1 or that α1 is 0-0.1. Kadowaki teaches that x in Formula 1 is most preferably 0.02-0.1 (Kadowaki [0047]), which corresponds to 1.04<a<1.22 and 0.04<α1<0.22, each of which overlaps the ranges 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). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any value within the disclosed ranges, including values within the ranges of the instant claims.
Kadowaki does not teach any particular intensity ratio. Kawasato teaches that a ratio I003/I104 of 1.24-1.29 improves rate retention in NCM composite oxides (Kawasato [0030]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select a ratio I003/I104 of 1.24-1.29, which falls within the range of the instant claim, for the cathode material of Kadowaki in order to improve rate retention.
Kadowaki does not teach any particular W003. Takei teaches that a W003 of about 0.13-0.15 improves stability in lithium composite oxides (Takei [0065]-[0066]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select a W003 of about 0.13-0.15, which overlaps the range of the instant claim, to improve stability. 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).
Kadowaki does not teach any particular width ratio. Takei teaches that a W003 or about 0.13-0.15 and a W104 of about 0.15-0.18 (i.e. a ratio W003/W104 of about 0.72 to about 1) improves stability in lithium composite oxides (Takei [0065]-[0066]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select a ratio W003/W104 of about 0.72 to about 1, which overlaps the range of the instant claim. Note that “about 1” is considered to include both 1.01 and 1.09. 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) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.)
Claim(s) 8 and 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kadowaki in view of Kawasato and Takei as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cho et al. (KR 20190093547 A; all citations refer the English translation attached the office action mailed August 20, 2025).
Regarding claim 8, Kadowaki does not teach the presence of secondary particles comprising 10 or fewer primary particles. Cho teaches that adding a cobalt coating to single-crystal lithium mixed oxide particles improves structural stability and charge/discharge characteristics (Cho [0026]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to add a cobalt coating to the particles of Kadowaki to improve structural stability and charge/discharge characteristics.
The coating process of Cho involves coating the particles with a precursor and calcining (Cho [0089]-[0092]). This will necessarily result in some of the particles fusing together to form secondary particles of two primary particles.
Regarding claim 11, modified Kadowaki does not teach a cobalt-containing coating on the surface of the particles. Cho teaches that adding a cobalt coating to single-crystal lithium mixed oxide particles improves structural stability and charge/discharge characteristics (Cho [0026]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to add a cobalt coating to the particles of Kadowaki to improve structural stability and charge/discharge characteristics.
Regarding claim 12, modified Kadowaki teaches a coating at 0.5-5 wt% (Cho [0056]), which falls within the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 13, modified Kadowaki teaches a coating thickness of 1-50 nm (Cho [0057]), which falls within the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 14, modified Kadowaki teaches a coating formed by calcining cobalt precursors in an oxidizing atmosphere (Cho [0092]), which will produce cobalt oxide.
Regarding claim 15, modified Kadowaki teaches that the cobalt precursor may be selected from a group including cobalt-containing phosphates (Cho [0095]), which will necessarily produce a coating containing some phosphorous. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to try any of the precursors listed by Cho, including phosphates.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights