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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/22/2026 has been entered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 03/13/2026 and 06/24/2026 have been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Examiner notes the following amendments made to the claims:
Claim 9 amended
Claim 11 canceled
Claims 1-8 remain withdrawn due to non-elected subject matter
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner will respond to each argument in order:
First, applicant argues that there would be no motivation to combine Park and Choi because one teaches high-Ni NCM based active material and one teaches mid-Ni NCM based active material. As discussed in the interview dated June 18, 2026, this argument is not particularly persuasive as Park teaches Ni in a range of 0.65-0.95, and Choi teaches Ni in a range of 0.6 or less. Examiner disagrees with the assertion that these are “completely different compounds” as two compounds, one with 0.59 nickel content and one with 0.65 nickel content are very close in their nickel content. Unless applicant can provide more specific data for why two compounds that are around 5% different in Nickel content have significantly different effects, and argue the criticality of these differences, this argument is not persuasive, and examiner still finds there is sufficient motivation to combine these two references.
Second, applicant argues that Choi teaches away from park by disclosing that when m(Ni)/m(Mn) is larger than 1.5, there are disadvantageous effects. This is not a persuasive argument because, while Choi cites disadvantageous effects based on a high Ni/Mn ratio, Park teaches that a high content of Manganese can have disadvantageous effects as well (“In general, manganese (Mn) is disadvantageous in forming a layered structure and acts to inhibit particle growth due to its high oxidation number, but cobalt (Co) is an element favorable to the formation of the layered structure and plays a role in promoting the particle growth of a NCM-based lithium composite transition metal oxide.” Park [0023]). Both pieces of prior art teach desirable effects from each positive active material, with Choi citing positive effects from its composition and Park teaching desirable effects from its composition. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable and have motivation to combine the two references in order to achieve the desirable effects of both a high Ni to Mn ratio using the inclusion of Cobalt, as taught by Park (“As described above, the high-Ni NCM-based positive electrode active material of the present invention, which is a single particle and has a composition including 65 mol % or more of nickel (Ni) and 5 mol % or more of manganese (Mn), may simultaneously ensure excellent stability while being capable of achieving high capacity.” Park [0024]), as well as the desirable effects of a mid-Ni content active material, as taught by Choi (“Meanwhile, of the second cathode material, the second-(b) cathode material provides considerably improved high rate charge and discharge properties due to a superior layered crystal structure.” Choi [0042]). The teachings of Park came out nearly a decade after those of Choi, and one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would understand that technology can improve to the point where both of these kinds of materials can have desirable effects, as is shown separately in each of the two pieces of prior art. Lastly, and most importantly, the teachings of Choi that are being used to modify Park are specifically the Nickel ion ratio in the surface of the positive active material. Choi explicitly teaches that this modification leads to desirable results (“Such a lithium nickel-manganese-cobalt oxide maintains an average oxidation number of transition metals at a level larger than +3, thus considerably decreasing the amount of transition metals present in the reversible lithium layer based on the stable crystal structure of the cathode material and improving mobility of lithium ions and rate properties as well as capacity.” Choi [0053] and “Regarding the aspect (i), the second-(b) cathode material has an average oxidation number of transition metals except lithium, higher than +3, thus decreasing an average size of transition metal ions, increasing the size difference between lithium ions, and promoting separation between layers, thereby forming a stable layered crystal structure.” Choi [0054]), and thus the primary takeaway/teaching of Choi being used is the desirable results from this ratio. Therefore, there is sufficient motivation to modify Park to include the ratio of Ni +3 ions compared to Ni +2 or smaller ions on the surface of a positive active material, as both are related to cathode active material containing a significant nickel content.
Lastly, applicant argues that there would be no reasonable expectation of success by combining the two references and cites that one must be motivated to do more than merely vary all parameters or try each of a numerous possible choices until one possibly arrived at a successful result. Examiner does not find this argument persuasive, as in order to meet the claimed limitations, Park is being modified to explicitly gain an improvement that is cited by Choi, which comes from modifying the ratio of nickel ions having a specific oxidation number on the surface of a lithium-nickel based oxide. By including the specific ratio of Ni +2 to Ni +3 of Choi, Park would be seeking improvements of layer separation and improving mobility of lithium ions, which is explicitly cited by Choi. The range of Choi overlaps that in the instant claims and thus would not require a significant amount of experimentation to use a ratio of 50% or more Ni+3 ions.
In conclusion, none of the arguments presented by applicants are considered to be persuasive, and thus the rejections are maintained and unchanged, other than to account for the amendments made to the claims. There is currently not considered to be any allowable subject matter present in the claims.
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.
Claim(s) 9-10, 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (WO2019221497 A1), in view of Choi (US 20120219840 A1). Park (US 20210135187 A1) is used as translation for the WO document.
Regarding claim 9, Park teaches all of the following elements:
A positive electrode active material, comprising: a lithium-nickel-based oxide in the form of at least one of single particles or pseudo-single particles, (“A positive electrode active material for a secondary battery of the present invention is a lithium composite transition metal oxide including nickel (Ni), cobalt (Co), and manganese (Mn), wherein the lithium composite transition metal oxide includes the nickel (Ni) in an amount of 65 mol % or more and the manganese (Mn) in an amount of 5 mol % or more based on a total amount of transition metals, wherein the positive electrode active material is composed of a single particle, and has a crystallite size of 180 nm or more.” Park [0019])
wherein each single particle consists of one nodule, (“a single crystal of the positive electrode active material may be easily formed despite the lithium composite transition metal oxide having a composition including 65 mol % or more of nickel (Ni) and 5 mol % or more of manganese (Mn).” Park [0064]. Paragraph [0027] of instant specification describes “nodule” as “to particle unit body constituting a single particle and a pseudo-single particle. The nodule may be a single crystal lacking any crystalline grain boundary, or alternatively that may be a polycrystal in which grain boundaries do not appear when observed in a field of view of 5000x to 20000x using a scanning electron microscope (SEM).” Instant spec [0027]. In this case, since the particle has a single crystal, it would qualify as having a single nodule and meet the claimed limitation.)
wherein each pseudo-primary particle is a composite of 30 or fewer nodules, (The claim requires the composite oxide to have a single particle of pseudo-single particles. Since Park teaches a single crystal, this limitation does not need to be met.)
wherein the lithium-nickel-based oxide is represented by Formula 1 below: [Formula 1] LiaNibCocM1dM2eO2 wherein in Formula 1 above, M' is Mn, Al, or a combination thereof, M2 is Zr, W, Ti, Mg, Ca, Sr, and Ba, and 0.8≤a≤1.2, 0.83≤b<1, 0<c<0.17, 0<d<0.17, and 0≤e≤0.1. (“Specifically, the lithium composite transition metal oxide according to the embodiment of the present invention may be represented by Formula 1 below. Li1+p[Ni1-(x1+y1+z1)Cox1Mny1Maz1]1-pO2 [Formula 1] In Formula 1, Ma is at least one element selected from the group consisting of Sr, Zr, Mg, Y, and Al, and −0.02≤p≤0.05, 0<x1≤0.4, 0.05≤y1≤0.4, 0≤z1≤0.1, and 0.05<x1+y1+z1≤0.35. “ Park [0033-0034]. As can be seen in the table below, the ranges overlap for each element in the composite oxide, and therefore the claimed composition can be found in the teachings of Park. For example, if x1, y1, and z1 were all chosen to be 0.05, and Ma were chosen to be Sr, Zr, or Mg, then the composition would be Li1Ni0.85Co0.05Mn0.05Ma0.05O2, which would meet all of the claimed ranges.)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art ranges for the molar ratio of all elements and element selection of M1 and M2 (Mn and any of Zr, Mg, or Sr in this case), shown in the table below, overlap or encompass the claimed ranges for the same parameters. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 1
Park Formula 1
LiaNibCocM1dM2eO2
Subscript range
Li1+p[Ni1-(x1+y1+z1)Cox1Mny1Maz1]1-pO2
Subscript range
Li
0.8≤a<1.2
Li
−0.02≤p≤0.05
Ni
0.83≤b>1
Ni
0<x1≤0.40.05≤y1≤0.40≤z1≤0.1 0.05<x1+y1+z1≤0.35
Co
0<c<0.17
Co
0<x1≤0.4
M1 (Mn and/or Al)
0<d<0.17
Mn
0.05≤y1≤0.4
M2 (Zr, W, Ti, Mg, Ca, Sr, Ba
0≤e≤0.1
Ma (Sr, Zr, Mg, Y, Al)
0≤z1≤0.1
Park is silent on the following elements of claim 9:
and wherein on the surface of the lithium-nickel-based oxide, a number of nickel ions having an oxidation number of +3 or higher is greater than a number of nickel ions having an oxidation number less than +3.
However, Choi teaches all of the elements of claim 9 that are not found in Park .
and wherein on the surface of the lithium-nickel-based oxide, a number of nickel ions having an oxidation number of +3 or higher is greater than a number of nickel ions having an oxidation number less than +3. (“Of the nickel (b) including Ni2+ and Ni3+, a ratio of Ni3+ is preferably 11 to 60%.” Choi [0066])
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art ranges of ------11-60% of the proportion of nickel ions having an oxidation number of +3 or higher compared to the proportion of nickel ions having an oxidation number of less than +3 overlaps the claimed range of 50% or more for the same parameter. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Park and Choi are considered to be analogous because they are both within the same field of cathode materials containing lithium nickel composites. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lithium nickel composite oxide of Park to include the specific ratio of Ni3+ to Ni2+ of Choi in order to increase the size difference between lithium and transition metal ions, which can in turn increase layer separation and minimize the insertion of Ni2+ into the lithium layer (“since nickel is present in an amount higher than manganese and an average oxidation number of transition metals is higher than +3, the size difference between the lithium ions and the transition metal ions increases, layer separation is accelerated, and insertion of Ni.sup.2+ into the lithium layer can be minimized.” Choi [0070]). This would be desirable as it would promote the formation of a stable layered crystal structure and improve mobility of lithium ions and rate properties (“Such a lithium nickel-manganese-cobalt oxide maintains an average oxidation number of transition metals at a level larger than +3, thus considerably decreasing the amount of transition metals present in the reversible lithium layer based on the stable crystal structure of the cathode material and improving mobility of lithium ions and rate properties as well as capacity.” Choi [0053] and “Regarding the aspect (i), the second-(b) cathode material has an average oxidation number of transition metals except lithium, higher than +3, thus decreasing an average size of transition metal ions, increasing the size difference between lithium ions, and promoting separation between layers, thereby forming a stable layered crystal structure.” Choi [0054]).
Park teaches all of the elements of dependent claims 10, 12-15, and therefore no further modification or motivation is required to meet all of the additional claim limitations.
Regarding claim 10, modified Park teaches all of the following elements:
The positive electrode active material of claim 9, wherein the pseudo-single particle a composite of 2 to 30 nodules. (As described above, since claim 1 only requires a single particle or a pseudo-single particle, the single particle taught by Park meets all of the required limitations, without needing to teach a pseudo-single particle having the claimed number of nodules.)
Regarding claim 12, modified Park teaches all of the following elements:
The positive electrode active material of claim 9, wherein the positive electrode active material has residual lithium in an amount of 0.5 wt% or less. (“The positive electrode active material according to the embodiment of the present invention may contain a residual lithium by-product in an amount of 0.5 wt % or less, preferably 0.48 wt % or less, and more preferably 0.46 wt % or less based on the total weight of the positive electrode active material.” Park [0040])
Regarding claim 13, modified Park teaches all of the following elements:
The positive electrode active material of claim 9, wherein the positive electrode active material has an average particle diameter of the nodules of 0.5 pm to 3 pm. (“The positive electrode active material may have a crystallite size of 180 nm or more, may preferably have a crystallite size of 200 nm or more, and may more preferably have a crystallite size of 220 nm or more.” Park [0028]. In this case, 220nm or more could mean anything above 220nm, and could therefore include the claimed range of 0.5µm-3µm)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art ranges of 220nm or more for the average size of single particle nodules encompasses the claimed range of between 0.5-3 µm for the same parameter. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 14, modified Park teaches all of the following elements:
A positive electrode comprising a positive electrode active material layer including the positive electrode active material of claim 1. (“According to another aspect of the present invention, there is provided a positive electrode and a lithium secondary battery which includes the positive electrode active material.” Park [0011])
Regarding claim 15, modified Park teaches all of the following elements:
A lithium secondary battery comprising the positive electrode of claim 14. (“According to another aspect of the present invention, there is provided a positive electrode and a lithium secondary battery which includes the positive electrode active material.” Park [0011])
Conclusion
The following references were discovered in an updated search but were not included in rejection, since previous rejection was maintained:
Oh (US 20210036319 A1)—teaches that Ni3+ is more desirable as Ni2+ tends to generate unwanted side effects in a positive active material (“As used herein, the term “cation mixing” refers to a phenomenon in which Li.sup.+ (0.76 Å) and Ni.sup.2+ (0.69 Å) cations having similar ion radiuses swap in each other's crystal sites (e.g., Li.sup.+ migrates to and occupies a Ni.sup.2+ site, and vice versa). For example, because nickel tends to energetically favor a divalent (Ni.sup.2+) valence to trivalent (Ni.sup.3+) valence and Ni.sup.2+ has a similar ion radius to Li.sup.+, Ni.sup.2+ may be mixed into vacant lithium sites during volatilization of raw lithium salt precursor materials during firing at high temperature, thereby unwantedly generating a lithium nickel oxide having a non-stoichiometric composition. The Ni.sup.2+ mixed in the lithium sites may not only hinder diffusion of lithium ions, but also greatly increase the rate and/or prevalence of irreversible ionic redox reactions of a battery, and resultantly deteriorate battery capacity.” Oh [0055])
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN ELI KASS-MULLET whose telephone number is (571)272-0156. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-6pm except for the first Friday of bi-week.
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, NICHOLAS SMITH can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/BENJAMIN ELI KASS-MULLET/Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights