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
The Amendment filed September 2nd, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 5-6, & 8-17 remain pending in the application. Claims 3-4 & 7 were cancelled by the Applicant. Applicant’s explanation of the previous amendment to the specification, filed January 20th 2023, is noted, therefore the objection to the specification is withdrawn. The 112(b) rejections of the claims have been withdrawn due to the Applicant’s amendment to Claim 1. The argument to the 103 rejection of Claims 1-3, 6-7, & 16-17 over Park et al. US 2018/0316009 A1 in view of Chen et al. US 2013/0260246 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Chen ‘246”) has been fully considered and the rejection is withdrawn. The rejections of Claim 4 over Park in view of Zhao et al. CN 109713251 A and of Claim 5 over Park in view of Choi et al. US 2018/0145322 A1 have also been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Chen et al. CN 113054186 A (hereinafter referred to as “Chen ‘186”). New rejections follow.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. With the amendment to Claim 1, Claim 2 appears to be repetitive of the limitation “wherein pore volume of pores with a pore size of 3-20nm accounts for 60% or more of total pore volume of all mesopores”. The limitation as stated in Claim 2 does not appear to further limit amended Claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim 1-2, 6, 8-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. US 2018/0316009 A1 and further in view of Chen et al. CN 113054186 A and Zhao et al. CN 109713251 A. Chen and Zhao are both mapped to the English machine translations provided by the EPO.
Regarding Claim 1, Park discloses a cathode material for a lithium ion battery [0002]. Park discloses that the cathode material has a porous structure [0060]. Park discloses that the cathode material is a lithium transition metal oxide with the formula LiaMO2 where a is most preferably 1-1.03 and M is Ni and an element from Group 4 to Group 13 [0045], such as Co or Mn. More specifically, Park discloses in examples 1-6 that the cathode material have the specific formula LiNi0.91Co0.04Mn0.05O2 [0114], which meets the limitations of the claimed formula 1 wherein
the molar ratio of Li is 1.0, thus “1+a” = 1.0, thus “a” = 0 which falls within the claims range
the molar ratio of Ni is 0.91, thus “x” = 0.91 which falls within the claimed range
the molar ratio of Mn is 0.05, thus “y” = 0.05, which falls within the claimed range
the molar ratio of Co is 0.04, thus “z” = 0.04, which falls within the claimed range
and “m” in this case is 0, which results in no element “A” being present
Examiner notes that even in the case where m is greater than 0, for example if m is equal to 0.01, Park’s formula would continue to read on the claimed formula, as follows:
the molar ratio of Li is 1.0, thus “1+a” = 1.0, thus “a” = 0 which falls within the claims range
the molar ratio of Ni is 0.91, thus “x” = 0.91 which falls within the claimed range
element “A” is Mn and the molar ratio of Mn is 0.05, thus “y” = 0.04 and “m” = 0.01, which falls within the claimed range
the molar ratio of Co is 0.04, thus “z” = 0.04, which falls within the claimed range
Park discloses that the cathode material has a specific surface area of 0.5-1 m2/g [0062], which falls within the range recited in the claim. In regards to the specific surface area, the Examiner directs Applicant to MPEP 2144.05 I. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the overlapping ranged disclosed by Park because selection of the overlapping portion or ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Park discloses that the cathode material comprises mesopores with a pore size of 10nm-60nm [0060], however fails to specifically disclose that 90% of the total pore volume is made up of pores in the size range of 2-20nm.
Chen ‘186 discloses an active material for a lithium battery (“ternary material” [Page 1 Lines 34-35]) comprising a lithium nickel manganese cobalt complex oxide [Page 1 Lines 35-36], similar to that of Park as mentioned above. Chen ‘186 discloses that the active material has a pore size of 3-20nm [Page 1 Lines 37-38], more preferably 5-10nm [Page 3 lines 19-21] and further discloses that active material comprises a volume ratio of pores with a diameter less than 8nm to all pores of 5-30% [Page 1 Lines 37-38], and more preferably that the volume ratio of pores with a diameter less than 8nm to all pores of 10-25% [Page 3 lines 19-21]. Thus, Chen ‘186 discloses that 70-95%, more preferably 75-90%, of the total pore volume is made up of pores with a size of 8nm or more and 20nm or less, more preferably 8-10nm, which falls within the claim limitation: “a pore volume of all mesopores of size 2-20nm accounting for 90% or more of the total volume of all pore sizes added together” (in this case, Chen ‘186 discloses a pore volume of all mesopores 8-10nm accounting for 75-90% of the total pore volume of all pore sizes added together). Thus, Chen ‘186’s disclosure also reads on the claim limitation: “a pore volume of all pores of size 3-20nm accounting for 60% or more of the total volume of all pore sizes added together”. In regards to the pore volume of a certain pore size, the Examiner directs Applicant to MPEP 2144.05 I. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the overlapping ranged disclosed by Chen ‘186 because selection of the overlapping portion or ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Chen ‘186 discloses that a battery comprising an active material such as this has uniform particle distribution, high specific capacity, high rate performance, and good high temperature cycle performance and low temperature discharge performance [Page 3 Lines 32-38].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to use the suggested pore sizes and pore volumes of Chen ‘186 in the cathode material of Park to provide a battery with uniform particle distribution, high specific capacity, high rate performance, and good high temperature cycle performance and low temperature discharge performance.
Additionally, Park fails to disclose that the particle size of the cathode material is Dv50 is 2.80-5.20 µm.
Zhao discloses a positive electrode material comprising a similar formula to that of Park (Li, Ni, Mn, Co, O composite [Page 3 Lines 11-16]). Zhao further discloses that the positive electrode material has an average volume particle diameter (Dv50) of 2-15 µm [Page 3 Lines 35-36]. In regards to the average particle size Dv50, the Examiner directs Applicant to MPEP 2144.05 I. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the overlapping ranged disclosed by Zhao because selection of the overlapping portion or ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Zhao discloses that a positive electrode material with this configuration has high temperature performance [Page 3 Lines 1-2].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to use the suggested particle size of Zhao in the material of Park to achieve a positive electrode material with high temperature performance.
Regarding Claim 2, as mentioned about in Claim 1, modified Park discloses that the 100% of the pore volume is comprised of mesopores with pore sizes of 2-10nm (as modified by Chen ‘186 in Claim 1), thus modified Park discloses that at least 60% of the pore volume is comprised of mesopores in the claimed range.
Regarding Claim 6, Park discloses that the cathode material contains lithium, manganese, and nickel [0069]. In Examples 1-6, Park discloses that the cathode material has the formula, as mentioned with regards to Claim 1, of: LiNi0.91Co0.04Mn0.05O2 [0114]. In this formula, Park discloses that the amount of nickel is 0.91, and the amount of manganese is 0.05, thus Park discloses that the amount of nickel in the cathode material is greater than that of the manganese.
Regarding Claim 8, in regards to the limitation “the preparation method comprises steps of mixing raw materials, then sintering at least twice and crushing at least twice”, the Examiner is treating it as a product by process claim, specifically regarding the phrase "characterized in that the lithium-ion battery cathode material is prepared by etc.". It has been shown that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (MPEP 2113).
Regarding Claim 9, in regards to the limitations of the first and second sintering temperatures and the constant temperature times, the Examiner is treating it as a product by process claim, specifically regarding the phrase “the first sintering temperature is 750-980°C, and the constant temperature time is 8-40 hours; the second sintering temperature is 650-920°C, and the constant temperature time is 5-20 hours”. It has been shown that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (MPEP 2113).
Regarding Claim 10, in regards to the limitation of the sintering atmosphere, the Examiner is treating it as a product by process claim, specifically regarding the phrase "characterized in that the sintering atmosphere is air, oxygen or mixed gas of air and oxygen". It has been shown that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (MPEP 2113).
Regarding Claim 11, in regards to the limitation of the further preparation steps, the Examiner is treating it as a product by process claim, specifically regarding the phrase "characterized in that the preparation method of the lithium-ion battery cathode material further comprises the following steps: (1) mixing crushed products with a metal A source and (2) sintering and crushing a mixture in step (1)". It has been shown that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (MPEP 2113).
Regarding Claim 12, in regards to the limitation of the sintering temperature and constant temperature time of the preparation steps of Claim 11, the Examiner is treating it as a product by process claim, specifically regarding the phrase "characterized in that the sintering temperature in step (2) is 300-780°C, the constant temperature time is 3-14 hours". It has been shown that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (MPEP 2113).
Regarding Claim 13, in regards to the limitation of the sintering atmosphere of the preparation steps in Claim 11, the Examiner is treating it as a product by process claim, specifically regarding the phrase “characterized in that the sintering atmosphere is air, oxygen or mixed gas of air and oxygen”. It has been shown that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (MPEP 2113).
Regarding Claim 14, in regards to the limitation of the Li source of the battery of Claim 8, the Examiner is treating it as a product by process claim, specifically regarding the phrase "characterized in that the Li source is lithium-containing oxide, lithium-containing fluoride or lithium-containing salt". It has been shown that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (MPEP 2113).
Regarding Claim 15, in regards to the limitation of the Li source of the battery of Claim 14, the Examiner is treating it as a product by process claim, specifically regarding the phrase "characterized in that the Li source is selected from one or more than two of lithium hydroxide anhydrous, lithium hydroxide monohydrate, lithium carbonate, lithium nitrate, lithium acetate and lithium fluoride". It has been shown that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (MPEP 2113).
Regarding Claim 16, modified Park discloses a positive electrode that comprises a positive electrode active material coated on a current collector [0013]. Park discloses that the positive electrode is used for a lithium ion battery [0014].
Regarding Claim 17, modified Park discloses a lithium ion battery comprising the positive electrode of as mention in Claim 16, a negative electrode, and an electrolyte [0013]. Park discloses that the electrolyte is a lithium salt-containing electrolyte [0095].
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, Chen ‘186, and Zhao as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Choi et al. 2018/0145322 A1.
Regarding Claim 5, modified Park discloses the cathode material of Claim 1, and discloses residual lithium on the surface of the cathode material, however fails to specifically disclose that the amount of free lithium is 2000ppm or less.
Choi discloses a positive electrode material similar to the composition of Park (Formula 3; a lithium composite oxide comprising Li, Ni, Mn, Co, O [0043]) and further discloses specifically that the amount of free lithium on the surface of the composite cathode active material is lower than 1500ppm or less [0052].
Choi discloses that reducing the amount of free lithium on the surface reduces the side reactions between the composite cathode active material and the electrolyte, thus suppressing the gas generation [0052].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to use the free lithium content as suggested by Choi in the cathode material of Park to achieve a free lithium content of lower than 1500ppm to provide a cathode material with reduced side reactions and suppressed gas generation.
In regards to the amount of free lithium on the surface of the cathode material, the Examiner directs Applicant to MPEP 2144.05 I. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the overlapping ranged disclosed by modified Park because selection of the overlapping portion or ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Park does not disclose the specific cathode material of Claim 1, mainly that Park discloses a composite cathode material having a core-shell structure whereas the material of Claim 1 is not coated. As currently written, the claim does not require the cathode material to be uncoated nor excludes a material having a core-shell structure, and therefore the claim is open to a cathode material such as the one disclosed in Park. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that Park does not disclose the specific formula of the claimed material. Examiner respectfully points out, as stated in the rejection above regarding Claim 1, that Park discloses in Examples 1-6 the cathode material comprises the formula: LiNi0.91Co0.04Mn0.05O2 [0114], which meets the limitations of the claimed formula 1 wherein
the molar ratio of Li is 1.0, thus “1+a” = 1.0, thus “a” = 0 which falls within the claims range
the molar ratio of Ni is 0.91, thus “x” = 0.91 which falls within the claimed range
the molar ratio of Mn is 0.05, thus “y” = 0.05, which falls within the claimed range
the molar ratio of Co is 0.04, thus “z” = 0.04, which falls within the claimed range
and “m” in this case is 0, which results in no element “A” being present
Additionally, Applicant argues that Park does not disclose that the cathode material has a specifical surface area of 0.25/1.2 m2/g. Examiner respectfully points out, as stated in the rejection of Claim 1 above, that Park discloses that the cathode material has a specific surface area of 0.5-1 m2/g [0062], which falls within the range recited in the claim. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that Park does not disclose that a particle size of Dv50 particles of the cathode material is 2.80-5.20µm. Examiner respectfully points out that Park is not relied upon for this claim limitation, and as stated in the rejection of Claim 1 above, is modified by Zhao that discloses this claim limitation (Zhao discloses that the positive electrode material has an average volume particle diameter (Dv50) of 2-15 µm [Page 3 Lines 35-36]). Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that Zhao does not disclose a cathode material with the claimed chemical formula. Examiner respectfully points out that Zhao is not relied upon for this claim limitation, and as stated in the rejection of Claim 1 above, Park is relied upon for this claim limitation. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, this argument is unpersuasive.
Similarly, Applicant argues that Choi does not disclose a cathode material with the claimed chemical formula. Examiner respectfully points out that Choi is not relied upon for this claim limitation, and as stated in the rejection of Claim 1 above, Park is relied upon for this claim limitation. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that Zhao does not disclose a cathode material with the claimed limitations of the specific surface area and the median volume particle size. Examiner respectfully points out that Zhao is not relied upon for the claim limitation regarding the specific surface area, and as stated in the rejection of Claim 1 above, Park is relied upon for the claim limitation regarding the specific surface area. Examiner respectfully points out that Zhao does disclose that the median volume particle size Dv50 is 2-15 µm [Page 3 Lines 35-36]. Zhao further discloses that a positive electrode material with this configuration has high temperature performance [Page 3 Lines 1-2], and therefore, as stated above, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use the particle size as suggested by Zhao in the cathode material of Park to achieve high temperature performance, and thus provide a cathode material with both a specific surface area (of Park) and the particle size (modified by Zhao) of the claimed material. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that Choi does not disclose the limitations of Claim 1. Examiner respectfully points out that Choi is not relied upon to teaching the limitations of Claim 1. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Chen ‘246 have been considered by are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA E GOULD whose telephone number is (571)270-1088. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey T. Barton can be reached on (571) 272-1307. 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.
/A.E.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1726
/JEFFREY T BARTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1726 19 September 2025