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 amendments as filed 02/03/2026 have been filed but do not overcome the 103 rejection as set out in non-final office action mailed 11/28/2025.
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.
Claim 1-5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-20220029152-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Lee’ in view of ‘Synthesis and Manipulation of Single-Crystalline Lithium Nickel Manganese Cobalt Oxide Cathodes: A Review of Growth Mechanism’ hereinafter referred to as ‘Wang’
Regarding Claim 1,
Lee teaches a positive electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery (Lee, “positive electrode which includes a positive electrode active material layer including a lithium nickel cobalt manganese-based oxide”, see Abstract), comprising a nickel-based active material including nickel in an amount of 60 mol% or more (Lee, “Lix[NiyCozMnwMv 1]O2-pAp… 0.3≤y<1”, see Claim 2), wherein the positive electrode active material includes a large crystal particle having a size of 1 µm to 10 µm (Lee, “particle diameter of primary particles of 3 μm or more”, see Abstract), and a lanthanide element is contained inside the large crystal particle ( Lee, “M1 comprises at least one element selected from the group consisting of W, Cu, Fe, V, Cr, Ti, Zr, Zn, Al, In, Ta, Y, La, Sr, Ga, Sc, Gd, Sm, Ca, Ce, Nb, Mg, B, and Mo”, see Claim 2), The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 3 µm or more broadly overlaps the claimed range of 1 µm to 10 µm. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 30 mol% to 100 mol % broadly overlaps the claimed range of 60 mol%. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Lee does not teach wherein the large crystal particle comprises a single crystal.
Wang teaches wherein the large crystal particle comprises a single crystal (Wang, see Fig. 1 F and I).
Wang teaches that the single crystal improves energy density (Wang, “Although the polycrystalline NMC particles have demonstrated large gravimetric capacity and good rate capabilities, the volumetric energy density, cycling stability as well as production adaptability are not satisfactory. Well-dispersed single-crystalline NMC is therefore proposed to be an alternative solution for further development of high-energy-density batteries.”, see Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention before the effective filing date to have modified the crystal a taught in Lee to have a large single crystal in order to improve the energy density.
Regarding Claim 2,
Modified Lee teaches the positive electrode active material of claim 1, wherein the lanthanide element is cerium (Ce) (Lee, “M1 comprises at least one element selected from the group consisting of W, Cu, Fe, V, Cr, Ti, Zr, Zn, Al, In, Ta, Y, La, Sr, Ga, Sc, Gd, Sm, Ca, Ce, Nb, Mg, B, and Mo”, see Claim 2).
Regarding Claim 3,
Modified Lee teaches the positive electrode active material of claim 1, wherein the positive electrode active material is a compound represented by Formula 1: Lia(Ni1-w-x-y-zM3wCoxM1yM2z)O2+-α1 wherein, in Formula 1, M1 is one element or two elements selected from the group consisting of manganese (Mn) and aluminum (AI),M2 is at least one element selected from the group consisting of boron (B), magnesium (Mg), calcium (Ca), strontium (Sr), barium (Ba), titanium (Ti), vanadium (V), chromium (Cr), iron (Fe), copper (Cu), zirconium (Zr), and AI, M3 is at least one element selected from the group consisting of lanthanum (La), cerium (Ce), praseodymium (Pr), neodymium (Nd), promethium (Pm), samarium (Sm), europium (Eu), gadolinium (Gd), terbium (Tb), dysprosium (Dy), holmium (Ho), erbium (Er), thulium (Tm), ytterbium (Yb), and lutetium (Lu), and 0.95<=a<=1.1, 0.6<=(1-x-y-z)<1, 0<w<=0.05, 0<=x<=0.4, 0<=y<=0.4, 0<=z<=0.4 and 0<=α1<=0.1 (Lee, “Lix[NiyCozMnwMv]O2-pAp-… 1.0≤x≤1.30, 0.3≤y<1, 0<z≤0.6, 0<w≤0.6, 0≤v≤0.2, and 0≤p≤0.2”, see Claim 2) (The examiner notes that x of the prior art is analogous to a, y is analogous to (1-w-x-y-z), z is analogous to x, w to analogous to y, and v to analogous to w, p is analogous to α1, the prior art has 0 of z element (z in the instant claim) which overlaps with the instant application range which includes 0) .
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 1.0≤x≤1.30, 0.3≤y<1, 0<z≤0.6, 0<w≤0.6, 0≤v≤0.2, and 0≤p≤0.2 broadly overlaps the claimed range of 0.95<=a<=1.1, 0.6<=(1-x-y-z)<1, 0<w<=0.05, 0<=x<=0.4, 0<=y<=0.4, 0<=z<=0.4 and 0<=α1<=0.1. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 4,
Modified Lee teaches the positive electrode active material of claim 1, wherein the large crystal particle is a one-body particle having a size of 1 µm to 10 µm (Lee, “particle diameter of primary particles of 3 μm or more”, see Abstract), a secondary particle in which primary particles are aggregated, or a combination thereof, and the primary particles have a size of 1 µm to 10 µm (Lee, “particle diameter of primary particles of 3 μm or more”, see Abstract),
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 3 µm or more broadly overlaps the claimed range of 1 µm to 10 µm. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 5,
Modified Lee teaches the positive electrode active material of claim 4, wherein the secondary particle has a size of 5 µm to 30 µm (Lee, “The lithium nickel cobalt manganese-based oxide in the form of a single particle or secondary particle may have an average particle diameter D50 of 3 μm to 30 μm,”, see [0043])
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 3 µm or to 30 μm broadly overlaps the claimed range of 5 µm to 30 µm. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 8,
Modified Lee teaches a lithium secondary battery comprising a positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery, the positive electrode including the positive electrode active material according to Claim 1 (Lee, “wherein the lithium secondary battery according to the present invention includes a positive electrode which includes a positive electrode active material layer including a lithium nickel cobalt manganese-based oxide”, see Abstract)
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-20220029152-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Lee’ in view of ‘Synthesis and Manipulation of Single-Crystalline Lithium Nickel Manganese Cobalt Oxide Cathodes: A Review of Growth Mechanism’ hereinafter referred to as ‘Wang’, in view of ‘Cerium doped LiNi0.5Mn1.5O4 composite with improved high temperature performance as a cathode material for Li-ion batteries’ hereinafter referred to as ‘Li’
Regarding Claim 7,
Modified Lee does not teach wherein no CeO2 related peak is observed in a region in which 2θ is 27° to 29° by X-ray diffraction analysis for the positive electrode active material (Lee, “a represents an atomic ratio of the doping element M2 substituted for the cobalt sites, wherein a may be in a range of 0 to 0.2, for example, 0 to 0.1”, see [0058])(The examiner notes that the Ce is doped into the structure at small amount it does not appear in the XRD as evidenced by Li [Li, “and indicating that extra Ce did not enter into the lattice when x ≥ 0.03 and form CeO2.”, see Structural and morphological analyses]).
Li teaches wherein no CeO2 related peak is observed in a region in which 2θ is 27° to 29° by X-ray diffraction analysis for the positive electrode active material (Li, “and indicating that extra Ce did not enter into the lattice when x ≥ 0.03 and form CeO2.”, see Structural and morphological analyses).
PNG
media_image1.png
482
881
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Li teaches that the formation of CeO2 can limit the diffusion of Li- (Li, “the redundant Ce would have reacted with O2 to form CeO2 thus suppressing the diffusion coefficient of Li+”, see electrochemical performance)
Lee and Li are analogous as they are both of the same field of Ce doped positive electrode materials.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Ce content as taught in Lee to be small enough to not form CeO2 as taught in Li, in order to improve the Li diffusion.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-20220029152-A1)hereinafter referred to as ‘Lee’ in view of ‘Synthesis and Manipulation of Single-Crystalline Lithium Nickel Manganese Cobalt Oxide Cathodes: A Review of Growth Mechanism’ hereinafter referred to as ‘Wang’, in view of (JP-2013120676-A) hereinafter referred to as ‘Yasukura’
Regarding Claim 6,
Modified Lee does not teach wherein a full width at half maximum (FWHM) of a peak corresponding to a (003) plane, obtained by performing an X-ray diffraction analysis on the positive electrode active material, is 0.10300 to 0.10520, and a ratio (FWHM (003)/FWHM (104)) of the FWHM of the peak corresponding to the (003) plane to the FWHM of the peak corresponding to the (104) plane is 1.22 to 1.26.
Yasukura teaches wherein a full width at half maximum (FWHM) of a peak corresponding to a (003) plane, obtained by performing an X-ray diffraction analysis on the positive electrode active material, is 0.10300 to 0.10520 (Yasukura,” the positive electrode active material for a lithium ion battery of the present invention has a half width at 2θ of a diffraction peak of (003) plane of 0.14 ° or less in powder X-ray diffraction (XRD)”, pg. 1) and a ratio (FWHM (003)/FWHM (104)) of the FWHM of the peak corresponding to the (003) plane to the FWHM of the peak corresponding to the (104) plane is 1.22 to 1.26 (Yauskura, “The positive electrode active material for a lithium ion battery of the present invention has a diffraction peak intensity ratio [(104) / (003)] between the (104) plane and the (003) plane of 0.80 or less in powder X-ray diffraction (XRD)”, pg. 2 ) (The examiner notes the inverse of the ratio is 1.25 which is within the range).
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 0.14 ° or less broadly overlaps the claimed range of 0.10300° to 0.10520°. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range 1.25 or less broadly overlaps the claimed range of 1.22 to 1.26. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Yasukura teaches that by keeping the half width at 0.14 or less the crystallinity becomes good and the composition variation is small (Yasukura, “Thus, by controlling the half width at 2θ of the diffraction peak of the (003) plane in XRD to 0.14 ° or less, the crystallinity of the positive electrode active material becomes good and the composition variation becomes small”)
Yasukura teaches that the if the ratio is too high between 104 and 103 that the ratio of cation mixing increases and various battery characteristics are deteriorated (Yasukura, “This diffraction peak intensity ratio is a scale indicating that Ni divalent ions occupy Li sites in the crystal (cation mixing). When the peak intensity ratio increases, the ratio of cation mixing increases and the Li site in the crystal increases. Since the diffusion of Li in the inside is inhibited, various battery characteristics are deteriorated.”)
Lee and Yasukura are analogous as they are both of positive battery materials.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the crystal to have ideal characteristics which would be demonstrated in the XRD results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pg. 7, the applicant argues:
“In the interest of advancing prosecution of the present application, and without acquiescing to the rejections, claim 1 is amended to further recite, in part, ‘wherein the large crystal particle comprises a single crystal. ‘ Applicant submits that Lee, Li, and Yasukura do not disclose, teach or suggest, at least this feature.”
However, this is not convincing. Wang teaches that there are significant benefits to single crystal nickel cobalt manganese (Wang, “Although the polycrystalline NMC particles have demonstrated large gravimetric capacity and good rate capabilities, the volumetric energy density, cycling stability as well as production adaptability are not satisfactory. Well-dispersed single-crystalline NMC is therefore proposed to be an alternative solution for further development of high-energy-density batteries.”, see Abstract). Wang also teaches that these crystals are large and single crystal at about 2 microns (Wang, see Fig. 1 F and I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention before the effective filing date to have modified the crystal a taught in Lee to have a large single crystal in order to improve the energy density.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAMUS PATRICK MCNULTY whose telephone number is (703)756-1909. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:00am to 5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicholas A. Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/S.P.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights