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 .
Claim Status
This Office action is responsive to amendments and remarks filed on 7/27/2026.
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Claims 1 and 3-20 are currently pending of which 17-19 are withdrawn from further consideration.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
In light of the amendment the objection to Figure 8 is withdrawn.
Despite the amendment the rejection to claim 3 under §112(b) is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
For instance, applicant argues that “Sun discloses that the secondary particles include a boron coating layer disposed on the outer surface of the secondary particle. However, such a disclosure corresponds only to the "boron coating layer located on the surface of the secondary particle" in claim 1 of the present application, and does not disclose or suggest the location of the boron doping layer.”
It is the position of the office that the presence of boron in the coating layer simultaneously acts as the boron doping layer. The applicant is making a distinction without a difference. There is nothing in the claim(s) that indicate(s) that these/this cannot be the same material.
Applicant also argues that “Sun discloses that a concentration of boron is uniform in the secondary particle. Accordingly, Sun does not disclose that the boron doping layer is only within a depth range of about 10 nm from the surface of the secondary particle.”
The examiner would like to point out SUN [0114] “The average concentration of the doping element in the coating layer may be higher than the average concentration of the doping element in the secondary particle. The coating layers may include lithium borate selected from a group consisting of…” and [0115] “A thickness of the coating layer may be in a range of 1 nm to 10 nm. When the thickness of the coating layer is smaller than 1 nm, it is difficult to effectively protect the surface of the secondary particle, resulting in deterioration of the lifespan characteristics of the secondary battery. When the thickness of the coating layer is greater than 10 nm, the movement of the lithium ions may be restricted, thereby to lower the capacity of the battery.”
This clearly anticipating the claimed boron coating and range in the instant application.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 3-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 3 recite the limitation “the boron doping layer is only within a depth range of about 10 nm (5 nm for claim 3). There is no support for this limitation in the instant specification. In fact, the specification [0032] recites “a boron coating layer on a surface of the secondary particles and containing lithium borate, and a boron-doped layer inside the primary particle exposed at the surface of the secondary particle” show that boron is not only located within a depth range of about 10 nm (5 nm for claim 5).
Claims 2, 4-16 and 20 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 1, 3-16 and 20 are 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 3, the new limitation recites “the boron doping layer is only within a depth range of about 10 nm (5 nm for claim 3) from the outer surface of the secondary particle.” It is unclear from the wording if the term “only” refers exclusively to the boron doping layer and for this reason excludes other potential surfaces. If so, it is unclear what the term “only” excludes. This limitation does not appear to give any further weight to the claim at all. For examination purposes the limitation of the claim will be interpreted as it has been prior to the amendment, that is an approximation of about 10 nm or less which makes it consistent with the presence of the word “about”. A new matter rejection under 35 USC 112a has not been held for this added limitation (only) however Applicant is advised said rejection is under consideration.
Claims 4-16 and 20 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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, 4-7, 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],
[0018] a boron coating layer on the outer surface of the secondary particles (as a gradient) and containing lithium borate [0019], and
[0026] a boron-doping layer inside the primary particle [0017] (covers at least a portion of the second and third crystal planes) exposed to the outer surface of the secondary particle [0045].
SUN [0115] discloses the boron doping layer is only within a depth range of about 10 nm from the outer 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_image1.png
518
352
media_image1.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_image2.png
546
737
media_image2.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 3, 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 3. SUN discloses 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.
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 range disclosed by SUN as the instantly claimed range.
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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights