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 .
Response to Amendment, Claim Status, and Other Notes
The amendment filed 12 November 2025 has been entered. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection and 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejection set forth in the Office Action mailed 12 August 2025. Claim 30 has been added. Claims 1–30 are pending in the application. Claims 17–28 are withdrawn from consideration.
Note that the paragraph numbers cited in this Office Action in reference to the Instant Application are referring to the paragraph numbering of the PGPub of the Instant Application. See US 2024/0136505 A1.
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.
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 1, 3–7, 10–14, 16, 29, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2018/0026267 A1) as evidenced by Manthiram et al. (Manthiram, A.; Knight, J. C.; Myung, S.-T.; Oh, S.-M.; Sun, Y.-K. Nickel-Rich and Lithium-Rich Layered Oxide Cathodes: Progress and Perspectives, Adv. Energy Mater. 6, 1501010, published: 7 October 2015) in view of Hong et al. (US 2020/0136132 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Kim discloses a positive active material (see nickel-based active material, [0038]) for a rechargeable lithium battery (see lithium secondary battery, [0038]), the positive active material comprising:
lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles (see secondary particle, [0039], also referred to as nickel-based active material secondary particles, [0041], represented by Formula 1, [0049]–[0070]) having a molar content of nickel of 33 to 95 mol% based on the total elements excluding lithium and oxygen (see 0.33 ≤ (1−x−y−z) ≤ 0.95, [0064]) and containing B ([0059]–[0060]). The disclosed range of 33 to 95 mol% overlaps with the claimed range of greater than or equal to about 80 mol%; note that when the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05.I).
Furthermore, it is well-known in the field of secondary batteries capable of cycling lithium that increasing nickel content provides greater capacity, but also lowers the thermal stability and cyclability, as evidenced by Manthiram (p. 18 ¶ “In order to produce…”).
Kim is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of secondary batteries capable of cycling lithium. A result-effective variable is a variable which achieves a recognized result. The determination of the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable is routine experimentation and therefore obvious (MPEP § 2144.05.II). In the instant case, the molar content of nickel is a variable that achieves the recognized result of affecting the capacity, thermal stability, and cyclability, as evidenced by Manthiram, thus making the molar content of nickel a result-effective variable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the positive active material of Kim such that the lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles have a molar content of nickel greater than or equal to about 80 mol% based on the total elements excluding lithium and oxygen via routine experimentation, for the purpose of achieving suitable capacity, thermal stability, and cyclability.
Kim does not disclose a first coating layer on a surface of the lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles and containing at least one of B, Sb, or Nb.
Hong teaches a positive active material (see composite cathode active material, [0038]) for a rechargeable lithium battery (see lithium battery, [0038]) comprising lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles (see a core including a plurality of primary particles… wherein each primary particles includes a nickel (Ni)-based first lithium transition metal oxide, [0039]) having a molar content of nickel greater than or equal to about 70 mol% or more based on the total transition metals ([0043]) and containing at least one of B or Nb ([0083]–[0084]). Hong further teaches a first coating layer (see first layer, [0039]) on a surface of the lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles ([0039], [0042]) and containing at least one of B or Nb ([0039], [0054]–[0055] and Formula 1). Hong teaches ([0042]) that the first coating layer serves to stabilize the lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles and restore performance of the active material deteriorated by washing the lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles with water.
Hong is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of secondary batteries capable of cycling lithium. It therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the positive active material of modified Kim such that the positive active material comprises a first coating layer on a surface of the lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles and containing at least one of B and Nb, as taught by Hong, for the purpose of stabilizing the lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles and restoring performance of the active material deteriorated by washing the lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles with water.
Kim does not disclose a second coating layer on the first coating layer and containing a metal phosphate.
Hong teaches a second coating layer (see second layer, [0039]) on the first coating layer ([0039]) and containing a metal phosphate ([0039], [0058]–[0060]). Hong teaches that the second coating layer serves as a surface protecting layer, inhibits a side reaction of the lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles and first coating layer with an electrolytic solution, and reduces the amount of lithium remaining on the surface.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the positive active material of modified Kim such that the positive active material comprises a second coating layer on the first coating layer and containing a metal phosphate, as taught by Hong, for the purpose of supplying a surface protecting layer which inhibits a side reaction of the lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles and first coating layer with an electrolytic solution and reduces the amount of lithium remaining on the surface.
Regarding Claim 3, modified Kim further discloses the positive active material of Claim 1. Kim further discloses wherein the lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles comprise secondary particles (see secondary particle, [0039]) each formed by aggregation of a plurality of primary particles (see primary particles, [0039], [0075]), and
an average particle size of the primary particles is 100 nm to about 250 nm ([0095]), which overlaps with the claimed range of less than about 200 nm. Note that when the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05.I). Kim teaches ([0095]) that when the average particle size of the primary particles is within the disclosed range, stress caused by changes in volume during a charge/discharge process may be suppressed.
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have thus found it obvious to select the overlapping portions of the ranges for the average particles size of the primary particles with a reasonable expectation that such selection would successfully result in a positive active material in which stress caused by changes in volume during a charge/discharge process may be suppressed.
Regarding Claim 4, modified Kim discloses the positive active material of Claim 3. Kim further discloses ([0099]) wherein an average particle size of the secondary particles is about 8 µm to about 18 µm; note that the disclosed range lies within the claimed range of about 5 µm to about 25 µm.
Regarding Claim 5, modified Kim discloses the positive active material of Claim 1. Kim further discloses wherein the lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles are in a form of secondary particles (see secondary particle, [0039]) in each of which a plurality of primary particles are aggregated (see primary particles, [0039], [0075]), and at least a portion of the primary particles are radially oriented ([0039]).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Kim discloses the positive active material of Claim 5. Kim further discloses ([0039]) wherein the secondary particles each comprise an inner portion having an irregular porous structure and an outer portion having a radially oriented structure as a region around the inner portion.
Regarding Claim 7, modified Kim discloses the positive active material of Claim 5. Kim further discloses wherein at least a portion of the primary particles have a plate shape (see primary plate particles, [0056]), and each of the secondary particles comprise open pores on the surface thereof ([0053], see also surface pores, [0056]), wherein the open pores are formed by the space between the plate-shaped primary particles oriented in a radial direction ([0056]), and the open pores are directed toward the center from the surface of the corresponding secondary particle ([0056]).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Kim discloses the positive active material of Claim 1. Modified Kim further discloses (Hong [0048]) wherein a thickness of the first coating layer is about 1 nm to about 10 nm.
Regarding Claim 11, modified Kim discloses the positive active material of Claim 1. Modified Kim further discloses (Hong [0054]–[0055]) wherein the first coating layer comprises:
an oxide of at least one of B or Nb; and/or
an oxide containing lithium and at least one of B or Nb.
Regarding Claim 12, modified Kim discloses the positive active material of Claim 1. Modified Kim further discloses (Hong [0048]) wherein the thickness of at least a portion of the second coating layer is about 50 nm or less. The disclosed range overlaps with the claimed range of 1 nm to about 20 nm; note that when the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05.I). Hong teaches ([0048]) that when the thickness of the second coating layer is within the range of 50 nm or less, cycle characteristics and thermal stability of the rechargeable lithium battery are further improved.
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have thus found it obvious to select the overlapping portions of the ranges for at least a portion of the thickness of the second coating layer with a reasonable expectation that such selection would successfully result in a positive active material which, when incorporated into a rechargeable lithium battery, would result in improved cycle characteristics and thermal stability.
Regarding Claim 13, modified Kim discloses the positive active material of Claim 1. Modified Kim further discloses (Hong [0059]–[0060]) wherein the metal in the metal phosphate of the second coating layer is at least one of Al, Ce, Co, Fe, Mg, Mn, Mo, Si, Ti, V, Zn, or Zr.
Regarding Claim 14, modified Kim discloses the positive active material of Claim 13. Modified Kim further discloses (Hong [0059]–[0060]) wherein the metal is at least one of Al or Mg.
Regarding Claim 16, modified Kim discloses the positive active material of Claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein a content of residual lithium on the surface of the lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles based on 100 wt% of the positive active material in a rechargeable lithium battery is less than about 0.2 wt%.
However, it is submitted that such limitations are simply measurements of, and thus descriptions of, inherent properties of the Instant positive active material.
Applicant discloses that a content of residual lithium on the surface of the lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles depends on: introduction of a doping element (B, Sb, or Nb), which increases the content of residual lithium on the surface of the lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles ([0042]), and the presence of the second coating layer which decreases the content of residual lithium on the surface of the lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles ([0076]), particularly when its thickness is less than or equal to about 20 nm ([0072]) and when the metal included in the metal phosphate contained in the second coating layer is Al or Mg ([0073]).
In comparison, modified Kim discloses: introduction of a doping element B (Kim [0059]–[0060]), and the presence of the second coating layer (Hong [0039], [0058]–[0060]) which can have a thickness of 50 nm or less (Hong [0048]), wherein the metal included in the metal phosphate contained in the second coating layer is Al or Mg (Hong [0059]–[0060]).
MPEP § 2112.01.I states that 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.
It is submitted that the positive active material of modified Kim is substantially identical to the positive active material of the Instant Application, as set forth above, such that it would inherently possess the same properties, exhibit the same results, and thus anticipate the claimed limitation, i.e. exhibit a content of residual lithium on the surface of the lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles based on 100 wt% of the positive active material in a rechargeable lithium battery is less than about 0.2 wt%.
Assuming, arguendo, that the property recited in the claimed limitation is not anticipated, as there is no evidence on the record that any differences between the instantly claimed positive active material and that of modified Kim are critical, and as the conditions of the prior art significantly overlap the relevant conditions disclosed in the Instant Specification, it is submitted that prior to the effective filing date, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found the positive active material of modified Kim and that of the Instant Application to be obvious variants of one another.
Regarding Claim 29, modified Kim discloses the positive active material of Claim 1. Kim further discloses a rechargeable lithium battery (see lithium secondary battery, [0038], [0113], [0137]), comprising
a positive electrode (see positive electrode, [0038], [0113], [0137]) comprising the positive active material of Claim 1 ([0038], [0113]),
a negative electrode (see negative electrode, [0113], [0137]), and
an electrolyte ([0113], [0137]).
Regarding Claim 30, modified Kim discloses the positive active material of Claim 1. Modified Kim further discloses wherein the second coating layer comprises a metal phosphate in which the metal is Al or Mg (Hong [0059]–[0060]) and has a thickness of 50 nm or less (Hong [0048]), which overlaps with the claimed range of about 1 nm to about 20 nm; note that when the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05.I). Hong teaches ([0048]) that when the thickness of the second coating layer is within the range of 50 nm or less, cycle characteristics and thermal stability of the rechargeable lithium battery are further improved.
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have thus found it obvious to select the overlapping portions of the ranges for at the thickness of the second coating layer with a reasonable expectation that such selection would successfully result in a positive active material which, when incorporated into a rechargeable lithium battery, would result in improved cycle characteristics and thermal stability.
Modified Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein a content of residual lithium on the surface of the positive active material is less than about 0.2 wt% based on 100 wt% of the positive active material.
However, it is submitted that such limitations are simply measurements of, and thus descriptions of, inherent properties of the Instant positive active material.
Applicant discloses that a content of residual lithium on the surface of the lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles depends on: introduction of a doping element (B, Sb, or Nb), which increases the content of residual lithium on the surface of the lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles ([0042]), and the presence of the second coating layer which decreases the content of residual lithium on the surface of the lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles ([0076]), particularly when its thickness is less than or equal to about 20 nm ([0072]) and when the metal included in the metal phosphate contained in the second coating layer is Al or Mg ([0073]).
In comparison, modified Kim discloses, as set forth above: introduction of a doping element B (Kim [0059]–[0060]), and the presence of the second coating layer (Hong [0039], [0058]–[0060]) which can have a thickness of 50 nm or less (Hong [0048]), wherein the metal included in the metal phosphate contained in the second coating layer is Al or Mg (Hong [0059]–[0060]).
MPEP § 2112.01.I states that 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.
It is submitted that the positive active material of modified Kim is substantially identical to the positive active material of the Instant Application, as set forth above, such that it would inherently possess the same properties, exhibit the same results, and thus anticipate the claimed limitation, i.e. exhibit a content of residual lithium on the surface of positive active material of less than about 0.2 wt% based on 100 wt% of the positive active material.
Assuming, arguendo, that the property recited in the claimed limitation is not anticipated, as there is no evidence on the record that any differences between the instantly claimed positive active material and that of modified Kim are critical, and as the conditions of the prior art significantly overlap the relevant conditions disclosed in the Instant Specification, it is submitted that prior to the effective filing date, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found the positive active material of modified Kim and that of the Instant Application to be obvious variants of one another.
Claims 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2018/0026267 A1) as evidenced by Manthiram et al. (Manthiram, A.; Knight, J. C.; Myung, S.-T.; Oh, S.-M.; Sun, Y.-K. Nickel-Rich and Lithium-Rich Layered Oxide Cathodes: Progress and Perspectives, Adv. Energy Mater. 6, 1501010, published: 7 October 2015) in view of Hong et al. (US 2020/0136132 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Choi et al. (US 2021/0167381 A1) as further evidenced by Pan et al. (US 2024/0162420 A1).
Regarding Claims 2 and 8, modified Kim discloses the positive active material of Claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles comprise cobalt-free layered lithium nickel-based composite oxide (Claim 2) or wherein the lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles comprise a compound represented by Chemical Formula 1:
Chemical Formula 1
Lix1Nia1M1b1M2(1−a1−b1)O2
wherein, in Chemical Formula 1, M1 is at least one of B, Sb, or Nb, and M2 is at least one of Al, Ba, Ca, Ce, Cr, Cu, F, Fe, Mg, Mn, Mo, P, S, Si, Sr, Ti, V, W, or Zr, 0.9 ≤ x1 ≤ 1.2, 0.8 ≤ a1 < 1, and 0 < b1 ≤ 0.2 (Claim 8).
Choi teaches a positive active material (see positive electrode active material, [0041]) for a rechargeable lithium battery (see lithium secondary battery, [0039]), the positive active material comprising: lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles (lithium composite oxide, [0041], which can be a high-Ni-type lithium composite oxide, [0058]) containing Nb ([0060]–[0065] and Formula 1) and optionally B ([0061]–[0065] and Formula 1); and a first coating layer (see first coating layer, [0073]) on a surface of the lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles ([0072]–[0073]) and containing at least one of Nb ([0073]–[0074]) and B ([0075]–[0077]). Choi teaches ([0061]–[0065]) wherein the lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles comprise a compound represented by LiwNi1−(x+y+z+z’)CoxM1yM2zNbz’O2 wherein M1 is at least one selected from Mn and Al, M2 is at least one selected from P, Sr, Ba, B, Ti, Zr, Mn, Al, W, Ce, Hf, Ta, F, Mg, Cr, V, Fe, Zn, Si, Y, Ga, Sn, Mo, Ge, Nd, Gd, and Cu, M1 and M2 are different elements, and 0.5 ≤ w ≤ 1.5, 0 ≤ x ≤ 0.50, 0 ≤ y ≤ 0.20, 0 ≤ z ≤ 0.20, and 0 ≤ z’ ≤ 0.20. Choi also discloses that the lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles can be cobalt-free (see 0 ≤ x ≤ 0.50, [0065]); one of ordinary skill in the art will understand that crystalline ([0042]) lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles as disclosed by Choi are necessarily layered.
It is well-known in the field of secondary batteries capable of cycling lithium that utilizing a cobalt-free material greatly reduces the cost of the material due to the high price of cobalt, as evidenced by Pan ([0013]).
Choi is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of secondary batteries capable of cycling lithium. It therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the positive active material of modified Kim such that the lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles comprise cobalt-free layered lithium nickel-based composite oxide (Claim 2), as taught by Choi, as it is well-known in the field that utilizing a cobalt-free material greatly reduces the cost of the material due to the high price of cobalt.
Modified Kim therefore discloses wherein the lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles comprise a compound represented by the following formula:
Lix1Nia1M1b1M2(1−a1−b1)O2
wherein, in this formula, M1 is Nb ([0061]–[0065]), and M2 is at least one of Al, Ba, Ca, Ce, Cr, Cu, F, Fe, Mg, Mn, Mo, P, Si, Sr, Ti, V, W, or Zr, 0.5 ≤ x1 ≤ 1.5 ([0061]–[0065]; note that this range substantially overlaps with the claimed range of 0.9 ≤ x1 ≤ 1.2), 0.8 ≤ a1 ≤ 1 (note that this range substantially overlaps with the claimed range of 0.8 ≤ a1 < 1), and 0 ≤ b1 ≤ 0.2 ([0061]–[0065]; note that this range substantially overlaps with the claimed range of 0 < b1 ≤ 0.2). Note that when the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05.I).
Given the substantial overlap between the ranges for the chemical formula above of modified Kim and Chemical Formula 1 of Claim 8, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to select the overlapping portions of the ranges for the chemical formula representing a compound comprised in the lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2018/0026267 A1) as evidenced by Manthiram et al. (Manthiram, A.; Knight, J. C.; Myung, S.-T.; Oh, S.-M.; Sun, Y.-K. Nickel-Rich and Lithium-Rich Layered Oxide Cathodes: Progress and Perspectives, Adv. Energy Mater. 6, 1501010, published: 7 October 2015) in view of Hong et al. (US 2020/0136132 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Park et al. (Park, K.-J.; Jung, H.-G.; Kuo, L.-Y.; Kaghazchi, P.; Yoon, C. S.; Sun, Y.-K. Improved Cycling Stability of Li[Ni0.90Co0.05Mn0.05]O2 Through Microstructure Modification by Boron Doping for Li-Ion Batteries, Adv. Energy Mater. 8, 1801202, published 11 July 2018).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Kim discloses the positive active material of Claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein a content of the at least one of B, Sb, or Nb is about 0.01 wt% to about 5 wt% based on 100 wt% of the total metals excluding lithium in the lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles.
Park teaches a positive active material (see Li[Ni0.90Co0.05Mn0.05]O2 cathode, p. 2 ¶ “In this paper…”) for a rechargeable lithium battery (see Lithium-ion batteries (LIBs), p. 1 ¶ “Lithium-ion batteries…”), the positive active material comprising: lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles (see B0.4-NCM90 and B1.0-NCM90, p. 2 ¶ “The chemical compositions…”) having a molar content of nickel of about 90 mol% based on the total elements excluding lithium and oxygen and containing B (p. 2 ¶ “The chemical compositions…”). Park further teaches that increasing the content of B increases the size of the unit cell (p. 2 ¶ The chemical compositions…”), increases the length and thinness of the primary particles (p. 3 ¶ “It is evident…”), improves the capacity retention of the positive electrode (p. 4 ¶ “Electrochemical charge–discharge…”), but decreases the electronic conductivity of the positive electrode (p. 8, ¶ “Lastly, rate capability…”). Note that Park is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of secondary batteries capable of cycling lithium.
A result-effective variable is a variable which achieves a recognized result. The determination of the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable is routine experimentation and therefore obvious (MPEP § 2144.05.II). In the instant case, the content of B is a variable that achieves the recognized result of affecting the size of the unit cell, the length and thinness of the primary particles, and the capacity retention and electronic conductivity of the positive electrode, as taught by Park, thus making the content of B a result-effective variable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the positive active material of modified Kim such that a content of the B is about 0.01 wt% to about 5 wt% based on 100 wt% of the total metals excluding lithium in the lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles via routine experimentation, for the purpose of achieving suitable unit cell size, length and thinness of primary particles, and capacity retention and electronic conductivity of the positive electrode.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2018/0026267 A1) as evidenced by Manthiram et al. (Manthiram, A.; Knight, J. C.; Myung, S.-T.; Oh, S.-M.; Sun, Y.-K. Nickel-Rich and Lithium-Rich Layered Oxide Cathodes: Progress and Perspectives, Adv. Energy Mater. 6, 1501010, published: 7 October 2015) in view of Hong et al. (US 2020/0136132 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Min et al. (US 2018/0145332 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, modified Kim discloses the positive active material of Claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein a content of the metal phosphate is about 0.1 wt% to about 3 wt% based on 100 wt% of the total metals excluding lithium in the lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles.
Min teaches a positive active material (see cathode active material, [0068]) for a battery ([0068]), the positive active material comprising: lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles (see lithium nickel composite oxide, [0068]) having a molar content of nickel greater than or equal to about 70 mol% ([0068]–[0069]) and containing at least one of B or Nb; and a coating layer containing a metal phosphate (see metal phosphate 200, [0068]). Min teaches ([0068]–[0070]) that the metal phosphate reacts with and removes the residual lithium compound remaining on the surface of the lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles; as such, one of ordinary skill in the art can understand that the content of metal phosphate will affect the amount of residual lithium compound removed from the surface of the lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles. Min also teaches ([0077]) that the content of the metal phosphate affects the thickness of the coating and the weight of the battery. Note that Min is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of secondary batteries capable of cycling lithium.
A result-effective variable is a variable which achieves a recognized result. The determination of the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable is routine experimentation and therefore obvious (MPEP § 2144.05.II). In the instant case, the content of metal phosphate is a variable that achieves the recognized result of affecting the amount of residual lithium compound removed from the surface of the lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles, the thickness of the coating layer, and the weight of the battery, as taught by Min, thus making the content of metal phosphate a result-effective variable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the positive active material of modified Kim such that a content of the metal phosphate is about 0.1 wt% to about 3 wt% based on 100 wt% of the total metals excluding lithium in the lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles via routine experimentation, for the purpose of achieving suitable levels of residual lithium compound removed from the surface of the nickel-based composite oxide particles, coating thickness, and battery weight.
***
Claims 1, 10–14, 16, 29, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2021/0167381 A1) as evidenced by Manthiram et al. (Manthiram, A.; Knight, J. C.; Myung, S.-T.; Oh, S.-M.; Sun, Y.-K. Nickel-Rich and Lithium-Rich Layered Oxide Cathodes: Progress and Perspectives, Adv. Energy Mater. 6, 1501010, published: 7 October 2015) in view of Hong et al. (US 2020/0136132 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Choi discloses a positive active material (see positive electrode active material, [0041]) for a rechargeable lithium battery (see lithium secondary battery, [0039]), the positive active material comprising:
lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles (lithium composite oxide, [0041]) having a high molar content of nickel ([0058]) and containing Nb ([0060]–[0065] and Formula 1) and optionally B ([0061]–[0065] and Formula 1); and
a first coating layer (see first coating layer, [0073]) on a surface of the lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles ([0072]–[0073]) and containing Nb ([0073]–[0074]) and optionally B ([0075]–[0077]).
Choi does not explicitly disclose the lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles having a molar content of nickel greater than or equal to about 80 mol% based on the total elements excluding lithium and oxygen. However, it is well-known in the field of secondary batteries capable of cycling lithium that increasing nickel content provides greater capacity, but also lowers the thermal stability and cyclability, as evidenced by Manthiram (p. 18 ¶ “In order to produce…”).
A result-effective variable is a variable which achieves a recognized result. The determination of the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable is routine experimentation and therefore obvious (MPEP § 2144.05.II). In the instant case, the molar content of nickel is a variable that achieves the recognized result of affecting the capacity, thermal stability, and cyclability, as evidenced by Manthiram, thus making the molar content of nickel a result-effective variable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the positive active material of Choi such that the lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles have a molar content of nickel greater than or equal to about 80 mol% based on the total elements excluding lithium and oxygen via routine experimentation, for the purpose of achieving suitable capacity, thermal stability, and cyclability.
Choi does not disclose a second coating layer on the first coating layer and containing a metal phosphate, and instead discloses a second coating layer (see second coating layer, [0079]) containing a metal oxide ([0079]).
Hong teaches a positive active material (see composite cathode active material, [0038]) for a rechargeable lithium battery (see lithium battery, [0038]) comprising lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles (see a core including a plurality of primary particles… wherein each primary particles includes a nickel (Ni)-based first lithium transition metal oxide, [0039]) having a molar content of nickel greater than or equal to about 70 mol% or more based on the total transition metals ([0043]) and containing at least one of B or Nb ([0083]–[0084]); and a first coating layer (see first layer, [0039]) on a surface of the lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles ([0039], [0042]) and containing at least one of B or Nb ([0039], [0054]–[0055] and Formula 1). Hong teaches a second coating layer (see second layer, [0039]) on the first coating layer ([0039]) and containing a metal phosphate ([0039], [0058]–[0060]). Hong teaches that the second coating layer serves as a surface protecting layer, inhibits a side reaction of the lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles and first coating layer with an electrolytic solution, and reduces the amount of lithium remaining on the surface.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the positive active material of modified Choi such that the second coating layer on the first coating layer is the second coating layer of Hong which contains a metal phosphate, as doing so will provide a surface protecting layer which inhibits a side reaction of the lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles and first coating layer with an electrolytic solution and reduces the amount of lithium remaining on the surface.
Regarding Claim 10, modified Choi discloses the positive active material of Claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein a thickness of at least a portion of the first coating layer is about 1 nm to about 10 nm.
Hong teaches a first coating layer (see first layer, [0039]) on a surface of the lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles ([0039], [0042]) and containing at least one of B or Nb ([0039], [0054]–[0055] and Formula 1). Hong further teaches ([0048]) wherein the thickness of the first coating layer is about 1 nm to about 10 nm, and that when the first coating layer has a thickness within this range, cycle characteristics and thermal stability of the rechargeable lithium battery are further improved.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the positive active material of modified Choi such that a thickness of at least a portion of the first coating layer is about 1 nm to about 10 nm, as taught by Hong, for the purpose of further improving the cycle characteristics and thermal stability of the rechargeable lithium battery.
Regarding Claim 11, modified Choi discloses the positive active material of Claim 1. Choi further discloses wherein the first coating layer comprises:
an oxide of Nb ([0073]–[0074]) and optionally B ([0075]–[0077]); and/or
an oxide containing lithium and at least one of B or Nb ([0075]–[0077]).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Choi discloses the positive active material of Claim 1. Modified Choi further discloses (Hong [0048]) wherein a thickness of at least a portion of the second coating layer is about 50 nm or less. The disclosed range overlaps with the claimed range of 1 nm to about 20 nm; note that when the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05.I). Hong teaches ([0048]) that when the thickness of the second coating layer is within the range of 50 nm or less, cycle characteristics and thermal stability of the rechargeable lithium battery are further improved.
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have thus found it obvious to select the overlapping portions of the ranges for at least a portion of the thickness of the second coating layer with a reasonable expectation that such selection would successfully result in a positive active material which, when incorporated into a rechargeable lithium battery, would result in improved cycle characteristics and thermal stability.
Regarding Claim 13, modified Choi discloses the positive active material of Claim 1. Modified Choi further discloses (Hong [0059]–[0060]) wherein the metal in the metal phosphate of the second coating layer is at least one of Al, Ce, Co, Fe, Mg, Mn, Mo, Si, Ti, V, Zn, or Zr.
Regarding Claim 14, modified Choi discloses the positive active material of Claim 13. Modified Choi further discloses (Hong [0059]–[0060]) wherein the metal is at least one of Al or Mg.
Regarding Claim 16, modified Choi discloses the positive active material of Claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein a content of residual lithium on the surface of the lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles based on 100 wt% of the positive active material in a rechargeable lithium battery is less than about 0.2 wt%.
However, it is submitted that such limitations are simply measurements of, and thus descriptions of, inherent properties of the Instant positive active material.
Applicant discloses that a content of residual lithium on the surface of the lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles depends on: introduction of a doping element (B, Sb, or Nb), which increases the content of residual lithium on the surface of the lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles ([0042]), and the presence of the second coating layer which decreases the content of residual lithium on the surface of the lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles ([0076]), particularly when its thickness is less than or equal to about 20 nm ([0072]) and when the metal included in the metal phosphate contained in the second coating layer is Al or Mg ([0073]).
In comparison, modified Choi discloses: introduction of a doping element Nb ([0060]–[0065] and Formula 1) and optionally B ([0061]–[0065] and Formula 1), and the presence of the second coating layer (Hong [0039], [0058]–[0060]) which can have a thickness of 50 nm or less (Hong [0048]), wherein the metal included in the metal phosphate contained in the second coating layer is Al or Mg (Hong [0059]–[0060]).
MPEP § 2112.01.I states that 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.
It is submitted that the positive active material of modified Choi is substantially identical to the positive active material of the Instant Application, as set forth above, such that it would inherently possess the same properties, exhibit the same results, and thus anticipate the claimed limitation, i.e. exhibit a content of residual lithium on the surface of the lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles based on 100 wt% of the positive active material in a rechargeable lithium battery is less than about 0.2 wt%.
Assuming, arguendo, that the property recited in the claimed limitation is not anticipated, as there is no evidence on the record that any differences between the instantly claimed positive active material and that of modified Choi are critical, and as the conditions of the prior art significantly overlap the relevant conditions disclosed in the Instant Specification, it is submitted that prior to the effective filing date, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found the positive active material of modified Choi and that of the Instant Application to be obvious variants of one another.
Regarding Claim 29, modified Choi discloses the positive active material of Claim 1. Choi further discloses a rechargeable lithium battery (see lithium secondary battery, [0039], [0102]), comprising
a positive electrode (see positive electrode, [0039], [0102]) comprising the positive active material of Claim 1 ([0039]),
a negative electrode (see negative electrode, [0102]), and
an electrolyte (see electrolyte, [0102]).
Regarding Claim 30, modified Choi discloses the positive active material of Claim 1. Modified Choi further discloses wherein the second coating layer comprises a metal phosphate in which the metal is Al or Mg (Hong [0059]–[0060]) and has a thickness of 50 nm or less (Hong [0048]), which overlaps with the claimed range of about 1 nm to about 20 nm; note that when the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05.I). Hong teaches ([0048]) that when the thickness of the second coating layer is within the range of 50 nm or less, cycle characteristics and thermal stability of the rechargeable lithium battery are further improved.
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have thus found it obvious to select the overlapping portions of the ranges for at the thickness of the second coating layer with a reasonable expectation that such selection would successfully result in a positive active material which, when incorporated into a rechargeable lithium battery, would result in improved cycle characteristics and thermal stability.
Modified Choi does not explicitly disclose wherein a content of residual lithium on the surface of the positive active material is less than about 0.2 wt% based on 100 wt% of the positive active material.
Applicant discloses that a content of residual lithium on the surface of the lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles of the positive active material depends on: introduction of a doping element (B, Sb, or Nb), which increases the content of residual lithium on the surface of the lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles ([0042]), and the presence of the second coating layer which decreases the content of residual lithium on the surface of the lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles ([0076]), particularly when its thickness is less than or equal to about 20 nm ([0072]) and when the metal included in the metal phosphate contained in the second coating layer is Al or Mg ([0073]).
In comparison, modified Choi discloses as set forth above: introduction of a doping element Nb ([0060]–[0065] and Formula 1) and optionally B ([0061]–[0065] and Formula 1), and the presence of the second coating layer (Hong [0039], [0058]–[0060]) which can have a thickness of 50 nm or less (Hong [0048]), wherein the metal included in the metal phosphate contained in the second coating layer is Al or Mg (Hong [0059]–[0060]).
MPEP § 2112.01.I states that 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.
It is submitted that the positive active material of modified Choi is substantially identical to the positive active material of the Instant Application, as set forth above, such that it would inherently possess the same properties, exhibit the same results, and thus anticipate the claimed limitation, i.e. exhibit a content of residual lithium on the surface positive active material of less than about 0.2 wt% based on 100 wt% of the positive active material.
Assuming, arguendo, that the property recited in the claimed limitation is not anticipated, as there is no evidence on the record that any differences between the instantly claimed positive active material and that of modified Choi are critical, and as the conditions of the prior art significantly overlap the relevant conditions disclosed in the Instant Specification, it is submitted that prior to the effective filing date, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found the positive active material of modified Choi and that of the Instant Application to be obvious variants of one another.
Claims 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2021/0167381 A1) as evidenced by Manthiram et al. (Manthiram, A.; Knight, J. C.; Myung, S.-T.; Oh, S.-M.; Sun, Y.-K. Nickel-Rich and Lithium-Rich Layered Oxide Cathodes: Progress and Perspectives, Adv. Energy Mater. 6, 1501010, published: 7 October 2015) in view of Hong et al. (US 2020/0136132 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, as further evidenced by Pan et al. (US 2024/0162420 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Choi discloses the positive active material of Claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles comprise cobalt-free layered lithium nickel-based composite oxide. Choi does disclose that the lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles can have a molar content of cobalt equal to or greater than 0 mol% and less than or equal to 50 mol% based on the total elements excluding lithium and oxygen ([0061]–[0065]). Note that one of ordinary skill in the art will understand that crystalline ([0042]) lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles as disclosed by Choi are necessarily layered.
Furthermore, it is well-known in the field of secondary batteries capable of cycling lithium that utilizing a cobalt-free material greatly reduces the cost of the material due to the high price of cobalt, as evidenced by Pan ([0013]).
It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the positive active material of modified Choi such that the lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles comprise cobalt-free layered lithium nickel-based composite oxide, as it is well-known in the field that utilizing a cobalt-free material greatly reduces the cost of the material due to the high price of cobalt.
Regarding Claim 8, modified Choi discloses the positive active material of Claim 1. Regarding the limitation wherein the lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles comprise a compound represented by Chemical Formula 1:
Chemical Formula 1
Lix1Nia1M1b1M2(1−a1−b1)O2
wherein, in Chemical Formula 1, M1 is at least one of B, Sb, or Nb, and M2 is at least one of Al, Ba, Ca, Ce, Cr, Cu, F, Fe, Mg, Mn, Mo, P, S, Si, Sr, Ti, V, W, or Zr, 0.9 ≤ x1 ≤ 1.2, 0.8 ≤ a1 < 1, and 0 < b1 ≤ 0.2, firstly, Choi does disclose that the lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles can have a molar content of cobalt equal to or greater than 0 mol% and less than or equal to 50 mol% based on the total elements excluding lithium and oxygen ([0061]–[0065]).
Furthermore, it is well-known in the field of secondary batteries capable of cycling lithium that utilizing a cobalt-free material greatly reduces the cost of the material due to the high price of cobalt, as evidenced by Pan ([0013]).
It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the positive active material of modified Choi such that the lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles comprise cobalt-free layered lithium nickel-based composite oxide, as it is well-known in the field that utilizing a cobalt-free material greatly reduces the cost of the material due to the high price of cobalt.
Modified Choi therefore discloses wherein the lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles comprise a compound represented by the following formula:
Lix1Nia1M1b1M2(1−a1−b1)O2
wherein, in this formula, M1 is Nb ([0061]–[0065]), and M2 is at least one of Al, Ba, Ca, Ce, Cr, Cu, F, Fe, Mg, Mn, Mo, P, Si, Sr, Ti, V, W, or Zr, 0.5 ≤ x1 ≤ 1.5 ([0061]–[0065]; note that this range substantially overlaps with the claimed range of 0.9 ≤ x1 ≤ 1.2), 0.8 ≤ a1 ≤ 1 (note that this range substantially overlaps with the claimed range of 0.8 ≤ a1 < 1), and 0 ≤ b1 ≤ 0.2 ([0061]–[0065]; note that this range substantially overlaps with the claimed range of 0 < b1 ≤ 0.2). Note that when the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05.I).
Given the substantial overlap between the ranges for the chemical formula above of modified Choi and Chemical Formula 1 of Claim 8, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to select the overlapping portions of the ranges for the chemical formula representing a compound comprised in the lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles.
Claims 3 and 5–7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2021/0167381 A1) as evidenced by Manthiram et al. (Manthiram, A.; Knight, J. C.; Myung, S.-T.; Oh, S.-M.; Sun, Y.-K. Nickel-Rich and Lithium-Rich Layered Oxide Cathodes: Progress and Perspectives, Adv. Energy Mater. 6, 1501010, published: 7 October 2015) in view of Hong et al. (US 2020/0136132 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2018/0026267 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Choi discloses the positive active material of Claim 1. Choi further discloses wherein the lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles comprise secondary particles (see secondary particles, [0041]) each formed by aggregation of a plurality of primary particles (see primary particles, [0041]–[0042]), but does not explicitly disclose wherein an average particle size of the primary particles is less than 200 nm.
Kim teaches a positive active material (see nickel-based active material, [0038]) for a rechargeable lithium battery (see lithium secondary battery, [0038]), the positive active material comprising: lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles (see secondary particle, [0039], also referred to as nickel-based active material secondary particles, [0041], represented by Formula 1, [0049]–[0070]) having a molar content of nickel of 33 to 95 mol% based on the total elements excluding lithium and oxygen (see 0.33 ≤ (1−x−y−z) ≤ 0.95, [0064]) and containing B ([0059]–[0060]), wherein the lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles comprise secondary particles (see secondary particle, [0039]) each formed by aggregation of a plurality of primary particles (see primary particles, [0039], [0075]). Kim further teaches wherein an average particle size of the primary particles is 100 nm to about 250 nm ([0095]), which overlaps with the claimed range of less than 200 nm. Note that when the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05.I). Kim teaches ([0095]) that when the average particle size of the primary particles is within this range, stress caused by changes in volume during a charge/discharge process may be suppressed. Note that Kim is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of secondary batteries capable of cycling lithium.
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have thus found it obvious to select the overlapping portions of the ranges for the average particles size of the primary particles with a reasonable expectation that such selection would successfully result in a positive active material in which stress caused by changes in volume during a charge/discharge process may be suppressed.
Regarding Claims 5–7, modified Choi discloses the positive active material of Claim 1. Choi further discloses wherein the lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles are in a form of secondary particles (see secondary particles, [0041]) in each of which a plurality of primary particles (see primary particles, [0041]–[0042]) are aggregated. Choi does not disclose wherein at least a portion of the primary particles are radially oriented (Claim 5), wherein the secondary particles each comprise an inner portion having an irregular porous structure and an outer portion having a radially oriented structure as a region around the inner portion (Claim 6), or wherein at least a portion of the primary particles have a plate shape, and each of the secondary particles comprises open pores on the surface thereof, wherein the open pores are formed by the space between the plate-shaped primary particles oriented in a radial direction, and the open pores are directed toward the center from the surface of the corresponding secondary particle (Claim 7).
Kim teaches a positive active material (see nickel-based active material, [0038]) for a rechargeable lithium battery (see lithium secondary battery, [0038]), the positive active material comprising: lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles (see secondary particle, [0039], also referred to as nickel-based active material secondary particles, [0041], represented by Formula 1, [0049]–[0070]) having a molar content of nickel of 33 to 95 mol% based on the total elements excluding lithium and oxygen (see 0.33 ≤ (1−x−y−z) ≤ 0.95, [0064]) and containing B ([0059]–[0060]). Kim further teaches wherein the lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles are in a form of secondary particles (see secondary particle, [0039]) in each of which a plurality of primary particles are aggregated (see primary particles, [0039], [0075]) and at least a portion of the primary particles are radially oriented ([0039]), wherein the secondary particles each comprise an inner portion having an irregular porous structure and an outer portion having a radially oriented structure as a region around the inner portion ([0039]), and wherein at least a portion of the primary particles have a plate shape (see primary plate particles, [0056]), and each of the secondary particles comprise open pores on the surface thereof ([0053], see also surface pores, [0056]), wherein the open pores are formed by the space between the plate-shaped primary particles oriented in a radial direction ([0056]), and the open pores are directed toward the center from the surface of the corresponding secondary particle ([0056]). Kim teaches that the above-described configuration of primary and secondary particles results in an increased rate of lithium diffusion such that high initial efficiency and capacity may be achieved in a lithium secondary battery including the lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles ([0056], [0100]).
Kim is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of secondary batteries capable of cycling lithium. It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the positive active material of modified Choi such that it has the configuration of primary and secondary particles of Kim, specifically such that at least a portion of the primary particles are radially oriented (Claim 5), the secondary particles each comprise an inner portion having an irregular porous structure and an outer portion having a radially oriented structure as a region around the inner portion (Claim 6), and at least a portion of the primary particles have a plate shape, and each of the secondary particles comprises open pores on the surface thereof, wherein the open pores are formed by the space between the plate-shaped primary particles oriented in a radial direction, and the open pores are directed toward the center from the surface of the corresponding secondary particle (Claim 7), for the purpose of increasing the rate of lithium diffusion such that high initial efficiency and capacity may be achieved in a lithium secondary battery including the lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2021/0167381 A1) as evidenced by Manthiram et al. (Manthiram, A.; Knight, J. C.; Myung, S.-T.; Oh, S.-M.; Sun, Y.-K. Nickel-Rich and Lithium-Rich Layered Oxide Cathodes: Progress and Perspectives, Adv. Energy Mater. 6, 1501010, published: 7 October 2015) in view of Hong et al. (US 2020/0136132 A1) and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2018/0026267 A1) as applied to Claim 3 above, as further evidenced by Choi et al. (EP 38278138 A1), referred to herein as evidentiary Choi.
Regarding Claim 4, modified Choi discloses the positive active material of Claim 3. Choi further discloses ([0044]) wherein the average particle size of the secondary particles is in a range of 1 µm to 30 µm (note that although [0044] refers to the secondary particle diameter as in a range of 1 to 30 m, one of ordinary skill in the art will understand this to be unreasonably large and therefore a typo; furthermore, the European publication of Choi discloses this range as 1 µm to 30 µm (evidentiary Choi [0030])), which overlaps with the claimed range of 5 µm to 25 µm.
Furthermore, Kim teaches ([0099]) that when the average particle size of the secondary particles increases, permeation of lithium into the active material may decrease due to increased resistance.
A result-effective variable is a variable which achieves a recognized result. The determination of the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable is routine experimentation and therefore obvious (MPEP § 2144.05.II). In the instant case, the average particle size of the secondary particles a variable that achieves the recognized result of affecting the resistance and permeation of lithium into the active material, as taught by Kim, thus making the average particle size of the secondary particles a result-effective variable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the positive active material of modified Choi such that the average particle size of the secondary particles is in a range of 5 µm to 25 µm via routine experimentation, for the purpose of achieving suitable levels of resistance and permeation of lithium into the active material.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2021/0167381 A1) as evidenced by Manthiram et al. (Manthiram, A.; Knight, J. C.; Myung, S.-T.; Oh, S.-M.; Sun, Y.-K. Nickel-Rich and Lithium-Rich Layered Oxide Cathodes: Progress and Perspectives, Adv. Energy Mater. 6, 1501010, published: 7 October 2015) in view of Hong et al. (US 2020/0136132 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (Liu, S.; Chen, X.; Zhao, J.; Su, J.; Zhang, C.; Huang, T.; Wu, J.; Yu, A. Uncovering the role of Nb modification in improving the structure stability and electrochemical performance of LiNi0.6Mn0.2O2 cathode charged at higher voltage of 4.5 V, J. Power Sources 374, p. 149–157, published 15 November 2017).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Choi discloses the positive active material of Claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein a content of at least one of B, Sb, or Nb is about 0.01 wt% to about 5 wt% based on 100 wt% of the total metals excluding lithium in the lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles.
Liu teaches positive active materials (see Ni-rich cathode materials, p. 150 ¶ “Although lithium-ion…”) for a rechargeable lithium battery (see lithium-ion batteries, p. 150 ¶ “Although lithium-ion…”), the positive active material comprising: lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles (see Nb modified LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 samples, p. 150 ¶ “LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 was synthesized…”) having a molar content of nickel equal to about 60 mol% based on the total elements excluding lithium and oxygen and containing Nb (p. 150 ¶ “LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 was synthesized…”). Liu teaches that the addition of Nb can stabilize the layered structure of the lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles but decreases the first cycle coulombic efficiency of the electrochemical cell (see p. 151 ¶ “Typical field emission…” and p. 152 ¶ “Initial charge and…”). Note that Liu is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of secondary batteries capable of cycling lithium.
A result-effective variable is a variable which achieves a recognized result. The determination of the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable is routine experimentation and therefore obvious (MPEP § 2144.05.II). In the instant case, the content of Nb is a variable that achieves the recognized result of affecting the stability of the layered structure of the lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles and the first coulombic efficiency of the electrochemical cell, as taught by Liu, thus making the content of Nb a result-effective variable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the positive active material of modified Choi such that a content of the Nb is about 0.01 wt% to about 5 wt% based on 100 wt% of the total metals excluding lithium in the lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles via routine experimentation, for the purpose of achieving suitable stability of the layered structure of the lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles and first coulombic efficiency of the electrochemical cell.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2021/0167381 A1) as evidenced by Manthiram et al. (Manthiram, A.; Knight, J. C.; Myung, S.-T.; Oh, S.-M.; Sun, Y.-K. Nickel-Rich and Lithium-Rich Layered Oxide Cathodes: Progress and Perspectives, Adv. Energy Mater. 6, 1501010, published: 7 October 2015) in view of Hong et al. (US 2020/0136132 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Min et al. (US 2018/0145332 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, modified Choi discloses the positive active material of Claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein a content of the metal phosphate is about 0.1 wt% to about 3 wt% based on 100 wt% of the total metals excluding lithium in the lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles.
Min teaches a positive active material (see cathode active material, [0068]) for a battery ([0068]), the positive active material comprising: lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles (see lithium nickel composite oxide, [0068]) having a molar content of nickel greater than or equal to about 70 mol% ([0068]–[0069]) and containing at least one of B or Nb; and a coating layer containing a metal phosphate (see metal phosphate 200, [0068]). Min teaches ([0068]–[0070]) that the metal phosphate reacts with and removes the residual lithium compound remaining on the surface of the lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles; as such, one of ordinary skill in the art can understand that the content of metal phosphate will affect the amount of residual lithium compound removed from the surface of the lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles. Min also teaches ([0077]) that the content of the metal phosphate affects the thickness of the coating and the weight of the battery. Note that Min is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of secondary batteries capable of cycling lithium.
A result-effective variable is a variable which achieves a recognized result. The determination of the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable is routine experimentation and therefore obvious (MPEP § 2144.05.II). In the instant case, the content of metal phosphate is a variable that achieves the recognized result of affecting the amount of residual lithium compound removed from the surface of the lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles, the thickness of the coating layer, and the weight of the battery, as taught by Min, thus making the content of metal phosphate a result-effective variable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the positive active material of modified Choi such that a content of the metal phosphate is about 0.1 wt% to about 3 wt% based on 100 wt% of the total metals excluding lithium in the lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles via routine experimentation, for the purpose of achieving suitable levels of residual lithium compound removed from the surface of the nickel-based composite oxide particles, coating thickness, and battery weight.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12 November 2026 regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections in the Office Action mailed 12 August 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
Applicant argues on p. 11–12 of Remarks (argument A) that the Office has not established a motivation with a reasonable expectation of success by combining Kim and Hong, specifically arguing:
Kim does not describe the use of or desire for one or more coating layers on the surface of the lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles;
Hong appears to disclose that the cited “first layer” and “second layer” are combined with a composite cathode active material that does not include a molar content of nickel greater than or equal to about 80 mol% based on the total elements excluding lithium and oxygen;
neither Kim not Hong provide any teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine their respective disclosures in the manner required by claim 1, or any reasonable expectation that such a combination would achieve performance benefits; and
that the unpredictability of lithium battery performance, particularly when altering composition of the positive active material, renders the Office’s rationale speculative, and that the skilled artisan would not have a reasonable expectation that adding the cited layers of Hong on the surface of Kim’s nickel-based composite would yield any improvement, let alone the demonstrated superior results.
This argument is not persuasive. Firstly, teaching reference Hong provides the required motivation for the combination of references, and therefore it is not necessary that primary reference Kim describe the use of or desire for one or more coating layers on the surface of the lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles. Specifically, as set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above, teaching reference Hong teaches ([0042]) that the first coating layer provides stabilization of the lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles and restoration of performance of the active material deteriorated by washing with water, and that the second coating layer provides a surface protecting layer which inhibits a side reaction of the lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles and first coating layer with an electrolytic solution and reduces the amount of lithium remaining on the surface, and thus teaching reference Hong provides the required motivation for use of the coating layers on the surface of the lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles of Kim. Secondly, the reference Hong is used as a teaching reference, and therefore it is not necessary that it contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, such as a molar content of nickel greater than or about 80 mol% based on the total elements excluding lithium and oxygen. Rather, Hong is used to teach a specific concept, namely the first and second coating layers, and in combination with the above references discloses the presently claimed invention. Furthermore, Hong teaches ([0043]) a lithium nickel-based composite oxide which can include a molar content of nickel greater than 70 mol% or more (and even greater than 80 mol% or more) based on the total transition metals content; one of ordinary skill in the art will understand that the subject matter disclosed by Hong regarding this limitation significantly overlaps with that of the claimed invention. Thirdly, as stated above, Hong does provide a motivation to combine with a reasonable expectation of success the respective disclosures of Kim and Hong in the manner described in Claim 1. Finally, because the rejection of Claim 1 as set forth above provides a clear rationale for the above combination of references, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the combination to result in the improvements described, and thus it cannot be said that the rationale is merely speculative. As such, this argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues on p. 12–13 of Remarks (argument B) that the Office has not established a motivation with a reasonable expectation of success by combining Choi and Hong, specifically arguing:
Choi does not describe the use of or a desire for one or more coating layers on the surface of the cited first coating layer;
neither Choi nor Hong provide any teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine their respective disclosures in the manner required by claim 1, or any reasonable expectation that such a combination would achieve performance benefits; and
that the unpredictability of lithium battery performance, particularly when altering composition of the positive active material, renders the Office’s rationale speculative, and that the skilled artisan would not have a reasonable expectation that adding the cited layer of Hong on the surface of Choi’s nickel-based composite would yield any improvement, let alone the demonstrated superior results.
This argument is not persuasive. Firstly, teaching reference Hong provides the required motivation for the combination of references, and therefore it is not necessary that primary reference Choi describe the use of or desire for one or more coating layers on the surface of the first coating layer. Specifically, as set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above, teaching reference Hong teaches ([0042]) that the second coating layer provides a surface protecting layer which inhibits a side reaction of the lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles and first coating layer with an electrolytic solution and reduces the amount of lithium remaining on the surface, and thus teaching reference Hong provides the required motivation for use of the second coating layer on the surface of first coating layer of Choi. Secondly, as stated above, Hong does provide a motivation to combine with a reasonable expectation of success the respective disclosures of Choi and Hong in the manner described in Claim 1. Finally, because the rejection of Claim 1 as set forth above provides a clear rationale for the above combination of references, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the combination to result in the improvements described, and thus it cannot be said that the rationale is merely speculative. As such, this argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues on p. 13 of Remarks (argument C) that the cited references teach away from the claimed combination and collectively discourage it, with the divergence in objectives and chemistries underscoring the unpredictability of lithium battery performance and negating a reasonable expectation of success, specifically arguing:
Hong’s rationale for applying a second coating layer appears to restore performance after water washing, not to address lithium in high-Ni cathodes;
Kim emphasizes particle morphology and B doping for structural stability, without any suggestion of surface coatings;
Choi teaches Nb-based oxide coatings and does not contemplate adding a phosphate layer, which would introduce different chemistry and processing steps.
This argument is not persuasive. As set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above, Hong teaches ([0042]) that the second coating layer serves as a surface protecting layer, inhibits a side reaction of the lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles and first coating layer with an electrolytic solution, and reduces the amount of lithium remaining on the surface, thus Hong’s second coating does address lithium in high-Ni cathodes. Secondly, as set forth above, teaching reference Hong provides the required motivation for the combination of references and particularly the application of the coating layer(s), and therefore it is not necessary that primary reference Kim describe the use of or desire for surface coatings on the lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles. Similarly and finally, it is not necessary that primary reference Choi contemplate adding a phosphate layer, as the motivation to combine the references Choi and Hong and apply the teachings regarding the second coating layer of Hong to the lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles of Choi comes from teaching reference Hong as set forth above. Thus the argument is not persuasive, and further given that the rejections of Claim 1 set forth above provides clear rationales for the above combinations of references, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the combination to result in the improvements described with a reasonable expectation of success.
Applicant argues on p. 13–16 of Remarks (argument D) that a positive active material including the unique combination of: 1) lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles having a molar content of nickel greater than or equal to about 80 mol% based on the total elements excluding lithium and oxygen and containing at least one of B, Sb, or Nb; 2) a first coating layer containing at least one of B, Sb, or Nb; and 3) a second coating layer containing a metal phosphate, provides superior and unexpected results of improved high temperature characteristics, resistance increase suppression, enhanced storage characteristics, and higher cycle-life characteristics, as shown by the data in Tables 2 and 3, specifically arguing:
Applicant’s data demonstrate a synergistic effect with the above variables 1–3 achieving reduced residual lithium (< 0.2 wt%) and improved cycle life.
This argument is not persuasive. Firstly, the Instant Specification does not describe the results as unexpected, and thus a showing of unexpected results must be in an affidavit or declaration and be compared to the closest prior art. As per MPEP § 716.02(e), an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979). Applicants may compare the claimed invention with prior art that is more closely related to the invention than the prior art relied upon by the Examiner. In re Holladay, 584 F.2d 384, 199 USPQ 516 (CCPA 1978); Ex parte Humber, 217 USPQ 265 (Bd. App. 1961). In other words, the evidence of unexpected results must be compared with prior art. Emphasis added. Secondly, as per MPEP § 716.02(b), the evidence relied upon should establish "that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance." Ex parte Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318, 1319 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). In the instant case, Applicant argues a synergistic effect between three variables 1–3 as set forth above, but does not show e.g. any Comparative Examples which include a lower nickel content (i.e. below 80 mol%) to demonstrate the effect of variable (1). Applicant also does not show any statistical analysis demonstrating that the results are significantly different from what is expected. Finally, as per MPEP § 716.02(d), whether unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, “objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occurred over the entire claimed range, In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980). Applicants have not provided data regarding e.g. the capacity, efficiency, and cycle-life characteristics of the lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles comprising Nb or Sb as claimed, nor particles comprising second coating layers including metal phosphates other than AlPO4 as claimed. Due to the above, this argument directed to unexpected results is not persuasive.
Applicant argues on p. 16 of Remarks (argument E) that the Office’s reliance on result-effective variables appears to be misplaced, and that the claimed invention requires a specific combination of features and not mere optimization of known variables, arguing specifically:
Applicant’s specification shows that without the second coating layer, residual lithium remains high despite Ni-rich composition and first-layer doping.
This argument is not persuasive. As set forth above, Applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to illustrate that the claimed combination of features provides unexpectedly superior results compared to the closest prior art. Thus it cannot be said that the performance of the claimed invention cannot be achieved by routine optimization of known variables, as set forth in the obviousness rejections above, and the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues on p. 16 of Remarks that the Office’s assertion that residual lithium reduction is inherent in the prior art combination is incorrect, specifically arguing:
Comparative Examples in the Specification show that B doping alone or phosphate coating alone fails to achieve residual lithium < 0.2 wt% while maintaining high efficiency, with only the claimed combination producing this result.
This argument is not persuasive. As set forth in the rejections above, the Examiner has provided explanations, based on the information provided in the Instant Specification, as to why the positive active materials of modified Kim and modified Choi, both of which would include both B and/or Nb doping and the phosphate coating and therefore are not analogous to the Comparative Examples cited by the Applicant, would be expected to demonstrate the same inherent property as that of the Instant positive active material, i.e. possess a content of residual lithium on the surface of the lithium nickel-based composite oxide particles based on 100 wt% of the positive active material in a rechargeable lithium battery of less than about 0.2 wt%. Through this explanation, the Examiner has provided evidence of inherency, and thus this argument is not persuasive.
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 JULIA MARIE FEHR, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-0860. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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, BASIA RIDLEY can be reached at (571)272-1453. 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.M.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/BASIA A RIDLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725