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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/20/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
This Office action is responsive to amendments and remarks filed on 1/20/2026.
Claims 1, and 3 have been amended.
Claim 2 has been cancelled.
Claims 1 and 3-20 are currently pending of which 17-19 are withdrawn from further consideration.
Response to Amendment
Despite the amendment the objection to Figure 8 is maintained.
Despite the amendment the rejection to claim 3 under §112(b) is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to the rejection of claim 3 under 35 USC §112(b) the rejection still stands for the following reasons: the amendment “a depth range of about 5 nm from the outer surface of the primary particles in the outermost portion of the secondary particle and facing the surface of the secondary particle” is upheld because it is still unclear.
With regard to the arguments in page 9 that the boron coating layer and the boron doping layer in the instant application are not related to each other or that they are somehow distinct from each other as opposed to the boron layer disclosed by SUN the office would like to direct attention to paragraph [0026] of SUN where “a doping element composed only of B” is disclosed.
The new limitation on amended claim 1 also clarifies how the surfaces face each other is also clearly shown in SUN figure 1a.
Annotated figures 4 from SUN and 5 of the instant application show SEM images of the radial structures and how SUN anticipates the structure of the particle over the instantly claimed particle.
The applicant’s argument that the particles are not inherently the same because SUN heats the particle twice is also not persuasive due to the fact that the particle was pre sintered
PNG
media_image1.png
459
962
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
567
924
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant further argues on pages 10 to 11 “Further, referring to Figure 4 of Sun, it can be confirmed that the primary particles are arranged in a radial structure only after the precursor is calcined at a high temperature together with boron oxide and lithium hydroxide. In addition, referring to Figure 10 of Sun, the SEM image of a positive electrode active material without boron doping shows that, when boron is not doped, the primary particles are not formed in a radial structure. Accordingly, the primary particles of the corresponding precursor are not arranged in a radial structure.”
This argument mischaracterizes the final product disclosed by SUN which is a positive electrode active material that is doped with a boron doping layer. Figure 10 discloses what a particle looks like if it is not doped with boron.
Information Disclosure Statement
It should be noted that the applicant has not responded to the IDS’s that have not been considered due to either missing translations or legibility issues as stated in the last office action dated 7/1/2025.
Furthermore, the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/26/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner except where lined-through. The Non-Patent Literature (NPL) documents such as the Korean and Chinese office actions were not considered due to the lack of an English translation, which is required for consideration.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the numbers on the axes are STILL not legible in figure 8. Please be advised that scans of other than black and white, such as greyscale do no render correctly in this agency’s software. Annotated screenshots of both scans dated 9/30/2025 and 1/20/2026 of the drawings are provided below:
FIG. 8 dated 9/30/2025
PNG
media_image3.png
1095
846
media_image3.png
Greyscale
FIG. 8 dated 1/20/2026
PNG
media_image4.png
1120
882
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
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 3 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 3 recites “a depth range of about 5 nm from the outer surface of the primary particles in the outermost portion of the secondary particle and facing the surface of the secondary particle” this language is unclear. In agglomerated secondary particles the outer surfaces of the outermost primary particles should simultaneously also be the outer surface of the secondary particle. For examination purposes this claim will be interpreted as the surface of the secondary particles will face towards itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
102(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention
Claims 1, 3-7, 11, 13, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2021006520 A1, SUN et al. provided in the IDS dated 5/24/2023 with US 20220271283 A1 used as the English translation.
Regarding claim 1. A positive electrode, (which SUN refers to as a cathode in the title), active material for a rechargeable lithium battery, comprising:
a secondary particle in which a plurality of primary particles [0009] comprising
a lithium nickel-based composite oxide [0026] are aggregated [0009], wherein at least a portion of the primary particles are arranged radially [abstract and 0009],
a boron coating layer on the surface of the secondary particles [0018] and containing lithium borate [0019], and
[0026] a boron-doped layer inside the primary particle [0017] (covers at least a portion of the second and third crystal planes) exposed to the surface of the secondary particle [0077].
The annotated figures 1a and 1c depicted below discloses the boron doping layer is within a depth range of about 10 nm [0115] from the outer surface of the primary particles in the outermost portion of the secondary particle and facing the surface of the secondary particle.
PNG
media_image5.png
640
715
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
811
639
media_image6.png
Greyscale
SUN further discloses the nature of the boron layers in “[0096] In the present disclosure, a coating layer including boron (B) covering at least a portion of the second and third crystal planes 120 and 130) may be disposed on the second and third crystal planes 120 and 130 of the first primary particle 100 disposed in the outer surface of the secondary particle 200. The boron (B) may be present in a doped manner into the secondary particle 200. The boron (B) may constitute the coating layer covering at least a portion of the outer surface of the secondary particle while controlling the shape of the first primary particle.” The figure above also corresponds to the said paragraph.
Regarding claim 3. The positive electrode active material of claim 1, wherein:
the boron doping layer is within a depth range of about 5 nm [0115] from the outer surface of the primary particles exposed to the surface of the secondary particle.
Regarding claim 4. The positive electrode active material of claim 1, wherein:
the lithium borate of the boron coating layer comprises LiBO2 [0114].
Regarding claim 5. The positive electrode active material of claim 1, wherein:
a content of the lithium borate of the boron coating layer is about 0.02 wt% to about 0.5 wt% based on the total weight of the positive electrode active material.
[0028] “the doping element is in a range of 0.05 mol % to 5 mol %”.
SUN in Table 1 shows Example 1 being Li1.01B0.01Ni0.65Co0.13Mn0.22O2
With B having a doping mol % of 1 then using the atomic weights to convert yields,
11
0.01
7
1.01
+
11
0.01
+
59
0.65
+
59
0.13
+
55
0.22
100
=
0.4
w
t
%
which is within range of the instant claim.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 6. The positive electrode active material of claim 1, wherein:
the positive electrode active material further comprises a grain boundary boron coating portion that is on the surface of the primary particles [0017] which covers the second and third crystal planes of the primary particles, inside the secondary particle [0009] and comprises lithium borate [0019].
Regarding claim 7. The positive electrode active material of claim 6, wherein:
a weight of the boron coating layer is greater than a weight of the grain boundary boron coating portion [0018].
Regarding claim 11. The positive electrode active material of claim 1, wherein:
the primary particles have a plate shape, and at least a portion of the plate-shaped primary particles are radially arranged in the secondary particle as depicted in figure 1c below.
PNG
media_image7.png
803
544
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13. The positive electrode active material of claim 1, wherein:
The secondary particle comprises an inner portion and an outer portion surrounding the inner portion as depicted in figure 1c above,
the inner portion comprises an irregular porous structure as depicted in figure 11 below, and
the outer portion comprises radially arranged primary particles also figure 1c above.
PNG
media_image8.png
546
737
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16. SUN Example 1 in table 1 anticipates the positive electrode active material of claim 1, wherein:
the lithium nickel-based composite oxide is represented by Chemical
Formula 1: Chemical Formula 1
Lia1Nix1M1y1M21-x1-y1O2-zXz wherein,
in Chemical Formula 1,
0.9 ≤ a1 ≤ 1.8, 0.3 ≤ x1 ≤ 1, 0 ≤ y1 ≤ 0.7, and 0 ≤ z ≤ 0.1,
M1 and M2 are each independently AI, B, Ba, Ca, Ce, Co, Cr, Cu, Fe, Mg, Mn, Mo, Nb, Si, Sr, Ti, V, W, Zr, or a combination thereof, and
X is F, P, S, or a combination thereof
With the formula Li1.01B0.01Ni0.65Co0.13Mn0.22O2
Regarding claim 20. A rechargeable lithium battery [title], comprising:
a positive electrode including the positive electrode active material of claim 1,
a negative electrode [0202],
a separator between the positive electrode and the negative electrode [0202], and
an electrolyte [0202].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 8-10, 12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2021006520 A1, SUN et al. provided in the IDS dated 5/24/2023 with US 20220271283 A1 used as the English translation.
Regarding claim 8. The positive electrode active material of claim 6, wherein:
a weight of the boron coating layer is at least 4 times a weight of the grain boundary boron coating portion.
SUN [0018] anticipates a higher portion but does not specify the exact amount.
SUN [0017-0018] discloses “[0017] In one implementation of the positive-electrode active material, a coating layer including boron (B) covers at least a portion of the second and third crystal planes. In one implementation of the positive-electrode active material, a concentration of boron (B) is uniform in the secondary particle, and a concentration of boron (B) has a concentration-gradient in the coating layer, wherein an average concentration of boron (B) in the coating layer is higher than an average concentration of boron (B) in the secondary particle.” That there is the presence of a boron coating layer on both the primary particles and the presence of boron in the overall coating of the secondary particle.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use a higher weight percent present of the boron in the coating of the secondary particle than the very thin layer of boron coating on the primary particle. It also would have been obvious to use an amount multiple times heavier, up to and including 4 times heavier by percent weight.
Regarding claims 9 and 10. SUN discloses the positive electrode active material of claim 6 above.
SUN does not specifically disclose:
the boron coating layer is included in the secondary particle in an amount of about 70 wt% to about 98 wt% and
the grain boundary boron coating portion is included in the secondary particle in an amount of about 2 wt% to about 30 wt% based on the total amount of the boron coating layer and the grain boundary boron coating portion.
a content of the boron coating layer is about 0.02 wt% to about 0.5 wt%, and
a content of the grain boundary boron coating portion is about 0.001 wt% to about 0.05 wt% based on the total weight of the positive electrode active material.
SUN discloses in table 3 a dopant mol% of B ranging from 0 to 7 mol% which when converted to wt% falls within the claimed set of ranges in the instant application. For example:
Li1.01B0.01Ni0.65Co0.13Mn0.22O2
With B having a doping mol % of 1 then using the atomic weights to convert yields,
(11)0.01/((7)1.01+(11)0.01+(59)0.65+(59)0.13+(55)0.22) (100)=0.4wt% which is within range of the instant claim as shown in the 102 rejection of claim 5 above.
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 for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used the claimed ranges.
Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges 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. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
Regarding claim 12. SUN discloses the positive electrode active material of claim 11.
SUN does not specifically disclose :
An average long axis length of the plate-shaped primary particles is about 150 nm to about 500 nm,
an average thickness is about 100 nm to about 200 nm, and
a ratio of the average thickness to the average long axis length is about 1:2 to about 1:5.
SUN [0080-0082] discloses “The third length f3 may be on a range of 10 nm to 400 nm. (Which is the equivalent of the thickness in the instant application.) Preferably, an average value of the third length f3 may be in a range of 30 nm to 300 nm, and more preferably 50 nm to 150 nm.”
SUN [0083] gives the length f1 as a ratio of 2 – 100 thereby giving the range to be 20 nm to 4 µm which is also within the instant range. As well as the f2 to f3 being a ratio of 1.5 to 80 yielding a range of 15 nm to 32 µm, also within the claimed instant range.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the particles in the sizes disclosed by SUN in the instant application before the effective filing date.
Regarding claims 14 and 15. SUN discloses the positive electrode active material of claim 13.
SUN does not specifically disclose:
the inner portion of the secondary particle has a larger pore than the outer portion,
the inner portion has a pore size of about 150 nm to about 1 µm, and
the outer portion has a pore size of less than about 150 nm.
SUN [0090] discloses “the angle θ at which the second crystal plane and the third crystal plane meet each other may be in a range of 30° to 170°”
SUN [0139] discloses the size of the particles as 10 - 400 nm which also read on claim 15.
Using the law of cosines
a
2
=
b
2
+
c
2
-
2
b
c
c
o
s
θ
yields 26 nm - 280 nm.
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 to have used the pore sizes disclosed by SUN as angles to a plane in the instant application.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAWRENCE LA RAIA III whose telephone number is (703)756-5441. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur 6:00am-4:00pm.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571) 272-1330. 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.
LAWRENCE LA RAIA III
Examiner
Art Unit 1727
/L.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/Maria Laios/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights