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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 11/20/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Examiner notes the following amendments made to the claims:
Claim 14 amended to depend on claim 9
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments filed 12/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, examiner finds that Choi does teach all of the previously referenced elements of claim 1, given how the claim is currently worded. Examiner additionally does not find the reasonable expectation of success argument persuasive for the reasons outlined below. Examiner will respond to applicant arguments in order:
First, applicant argues that Choi fails to teach the limitation “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" because Choi is referencing the Ni2+/Ni3+ ratio within the second cathode material, rather than specifically on the surface of it. Examiner does not find this argument persuasive, as Choi teaches that the ion size difference causes a minimal amount of Ni2+ to permeate onto the lithium layer on the surface of the structure (“As such, when nickel is present in an larger amount than manganese, nickel in an amount corresponding to the difference between the nickel content and the manganese content, is changed to Ni.sup.3+, thus decreasing ion size. Accordingly, the average size difference between the lithium ion and the transition metal ion increases, thus minimizing permeation of Ni.sup.2+ into the lithium layer and improving stability of the layered crystal structure.” Choi [0060] and “ In addition, remaining of unreacted lithium on particle surfaces is prevented and lithium salts such as lithium carbonate and lithium sulfate are thus not substantially present on the particle surfaces.” Choi [0040]. Essentially, Choi teaches the in addition to the MO layer, there is a lithium layer which is produces lithium ions on particle surfaces, and there is a higher ratio of Ni3+ to Ni2+ there.)
Secondly, applicant argues that there is no reasonable expectation of success in varying all parameters. Applicant cites the data in the instant specification and states that there would be no reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the claimed invention, but applicant does not relate this argument to the applied prior art at all. Therefore, this argument is not considered persuasive over the previously applied prior art. Additionally, as shown above, Choi teaches reasoning behind the difference in Ni3+ to Ni2+ in its material, such as how a higher proportion of Ni2+ ions can cause deterioration in electrochemical properties (“However, since Ni.sup.2+ has a size substantially similar to Li.sup.+, it moves to the lithium layer and readily forms a sodium salt, thus disadvantageously causing deterioration in electrochemical properties.” Choi [0044])
Since neither argument presented by applicant is considered to be persuasive, and no substantial amendments were made to the claims, the previous rejections remain in place and unchanged, and 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) 9-15 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) 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 either a single particle of pseudo-single particles. Since Park teaches a single crystal, this limitation does not need to be met.)
Park is silent on the following elements of claim 1:
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 1 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 10-15, 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 11, modified Park teaches all of the following elements:
The positive electrode active material of claim 9, 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 the 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
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 include 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 include the positive electrode active material.” Park [0011])
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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