DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
1. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/20/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
2. Applicant’s amendments with respect to claims filed on 11/24/2025 have been entered. Claims 1 and 3-20 remain pending in this application and are currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. Claims 13-19 have been withdrawn from consideration. Claim 2 has been cancelled.
The amendments and remarks filed are sufficient to cure the previous 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections set forth in the Non-Final office action mailed on 08/26/2025.
Drawings
3. The drawings are objected to because in the specification 5a is used to designate the central portion and 5b is used to designate the surface portion, however according to the definition of the surface portion in [0056] of the instant published application the surface portion in Fig. 1 is designated by 5a and the central portion is designated by 5b. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
5. Claim(s) 1, 3, 7, 11, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rempel et al. (Pub. No. US 20200243859 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Rempel teaches a cathode active material (electrochemically active particles, see [0047] where they are used in a cathode, see [0081] where the material is used as an active material in cathodes) for a lithium secondary battery (electrochemical cell, see [0047], see Table 5 gives examples of charging and discharging showing secondary cells), comprising a nickel-based composite metal oxide (particle composition, see [0036] wherein the particle comprises a first and second composition, see [0053] gives formula for first composition, see [0055] the first composition includes Ni, therefore it is a nickel-based composite metal oxide) including a secondary particle (secondary particle, see [0036]) in which a plurality of primary particles (primary crystallites, see [0036]) are agglomerated (see [0036] as the secondary particle is a plurality of the crystallites, they are therefore agglomerated into a single particle), wherein the secondary particle (secondary particle, see [0036]) includes a central portion (1st interpretation: (portion of the particle near the center, Fig. 3 below), 2nd interpretation: (primary crystallites, (see [0036]) make up the central portion)) and a surface portion (1st interpretation: (a portion of the particle near the surface, Fig. 3 below), 2nd interpretation: (portion of the particle including both the plurality of crystallites and material in grain boundaries)), the surface portion ((1st interpretation: (a portion of the particle near the surface), 2nd interpretation: (portion of the particle including both the plurality of crystallites and material in grain boundaries)) includes a nickel-based composite metal oxide doped with manganese (second composition, see [0036], see [0047] where the second composition comprises lithium/nickel/oxygen, see [0059] the second composition is a composite oxide, see [0062] shows doping with Mn, see [0099] gives a specific example of the second composition being a nickel composite oxide doped with Mn), an amount of manganese present in the grain boundaries (grain boundaries, see [0101]) of the plurality of primary particles (primary crystallites, see [0036]) present in the surface portion (1st interpretation: (a portion of the particle near the surface), 2nd interpretation: (portion of the particle including both the plurality of crystallites and material in grain boundaries)) is greater than an amount of manganese present inside the primary particles (primary crystallites, see [0036], see [0101] where the concentration of manganese is greater at the grain boundaries than in the crystallites), and the nickel-based composite metal oxide doped with manganese (second composition, see [0036], see [0047] where the second composition comprises lithium/nickel/oxygen, see [0059] the second composition is a composite oxide, see [0062] shows doping with Mn, see [0099] gives a specific example of the second composition being a nickel composite oxide doped with Mn) includes 0.1 mol % to 5 mol % of manganese (0.02 to 0.5 mole per mole of second composition, see [0069], see [0099] gives a specific example of Mn present in the second composition in 1.2 mol% based on total molar concentration of the entire particle) based on a total amount (mol %) of the metal other than lithium of the nickel-based composite metal oxide (particle composition, see [0036] wherein the particle comprises a first and second composition, see [0053] gives formula for first composition, see [0055] the first composition includes Ni, therefore it is a nickel-based composite metal oxide, see [0099] gives specific example of total composition, wherein Mn amount is drawn only from the second composition and 1.2 mol% of the entire composition, further see [0061] wherein the mole fraction of the substitution element in the second composition is higher than the entire particle and [0062] the sub element is Mn).
PNG
media_image1.png
477
720
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Example of surface and central portion under 1st interpretation
Regarding claim 3, Rempel teaches wherein the central portion (2nd interpretation: (primary crystallites, (see [0036]) make up the central portion)) of the secondary particle (secondary particle, see [0036]) does not include the nickel-based composite metal oxide doped with manganese (second composition, see [0036], see [0047] where the second composition comprises lithium/nickel/oxygen, see [0059] the second composition is a composite oxide, see [0062] shows doping with Mn, see [0099] gives a specific example of the second composition being a nickel composite oxide doped with Mn, see [0036] the grain boundaries between primary crystallites contain the second composition, not the primary crystallites).
Regarding claim 7, Rempel teaches wherein the nickel-based composite metal oxide doped with manganese (second composition, see [0036], see [0047] where the second composition comprises lithium/nickel/oxygen, see [0059] the second composition is a composite oxide, see [0062] shows doping with Mn, see [0099] gives a specific example of the second composition being a nickel composite oxide doped with Mn) includes a layered structure oxide (layered α-NaFeO.sub.2-type structure, see [0032], see [0099] gives specific example, see [0059] the second composition is an oxide), a spinel structure oxide, a halite structure oxide, or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 11, Rempel teaches wherein a c-axis length (d-spacing) value (c, see [0035]) of the primary particles (primary crystallites, see [0036]) present in the surface portion (1st interpretation: (a portion of the particle near the surface, Fig. 3 above), 2nd interpretation: (portion of the particle including both the plurality of crystallites and material in grain boundaries)) of the secondary particle (secondary particle, see [0036]) of the cathode active material (electrochemically active particles, see [0047] where they are used in a cathode, see [0081] where the material is used as an active material in cathodes) is greater than or equal to 4.88 Å (13.9 to 14.6 Angstroms, see [0035]).
Regarding claim 20, Rempel teaches a lithium secondary battery (lithium-ion battery, see [0083]), comprising a cathode (cathode, see [0081], see [0083] where the battery comprises the cathode) including the cathode active material of claim 1 (electrochemically active particles, see [0047] where they are used in a cathode, see [0081] where the material is used as an active material in cathodes, see rejection of claim 1 above); an anode (anode, see [0083]) including an anode active material (list of materials used in coating on anode, see [0083]); and an electrolyte (electrolyte, see [0084]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claim(s) 5-6, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rempel et al. (Pub. No. US 20200243859 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Rempel is silent to wherein the surface portion of the secondary particle is within 50 length % of a total distance from a center to an outermost surface of the secondary particle in a direction from the outermost surface to the center. The examiner would like to note, the surface portion will be interpreted under 1st interpretation for claim 1.
However, under 1st interpretation of the surface portion, because the particle disclosed by Rempel is uniform in composition, the compositional limitations regarding the surface portion are met by any portion of the secondary particle, therefore any portion of the secondary particle can be selected as the surface portion. Therefore, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to select within 50 length % of a total distance from a center to an outermost surface of the secondary particle in a direction from the outermost surface to the center to be the surface portion as seen in Fig. 3 above.
Regarding claim 6, Rempel fails to teach in the present embodiment wherein the nickel-based composite metal oxide doped with manganese is a compound represented by Chemical Formula 1:
LiNi.sub.1−x−y−zCo.sub.xMn.sub.yM.sub.zO.sub.2 [Chemical Formula 1] wherein, in Chemical Formula 1, 0<x≤0.05, 0.001≤y≤0.05, and 0≤z≤0.02, and M is at least one metal element selected from Ni, Mn, Al, Cr, Fe, V, Mg, Ti, Zr, Nb, Mo, W, Cu, Zn, Ga, In, Sn, La, B, Ta, Pr, Si, Ba, and Ce.
However, Rempel teaches in a different embodiment wherein the nickel-based composite metal oxide doped with manganese (second composition, see [0036], see [0047] where the second composition comprises lithium/nickel/oxygen, see [0059] the second composition is a composite oxide, see [0062] shows doping with Mn, see [0099] gives a specific example of the second composition being a nickel composite oxide doped with Mn) is a compound represented by Chemical Formula 1:
LiNi.sub.1−x−y−zCo.sub.xMn.sub.yM.sub.zO.sub.2 [Chemical Formula 1] (LiMO.sub.2, see [0061] where the second composition is represented by the formula LiMO.sub.2, see M is Ni and one or more substitution elements, from hereinafter this formula will replace Formula II in [0059] and M will be equivalent to M’, see [0062] wherein Mn is the substitution element, see [0060] Ni is present in 0 to 0.99 moles, however in this specific embodiment Ni is present, therefore it is greater than 0 and less than 0.99) wherein, in Chemical Formula 1 (LiMO.sub.2, see [0061] where the second composition is represented by the formula LiMO.sub.2, see M is Ni and one or more substitution elements, from hereinafter this formula will replace Formula II in [0059] and M will be equivalent to M’, see [0062] wherein Mn is the substitution element, see [0060] Ni is present in 0 to 0.99 moles, however in this specific embodiment Ni is present, therefore it is greater than 0 and less than 0.99), 0<x≤0.05 (0, see [0063] where Co is optional, therefore in the embodiment it is 0), 0.001≤y≤0.05 (0.02 to 0.5, see [0069] Mn is present in second composition in 0.02 to 0.5 mole per mole of second composition), and 0≤z≤0.02 (0, see [0063] the composition optionally includes additional metals, therefore in the embodiment only includes Ni and Mn), and M is at least one metal element selected from Ni, Mn, Al, Cr, Fe, V, Mg, Ti, Zr, Nb, Mo, W, Cu, Zn, Ga, In, Sn, La, B, Ta, Pr, Si, Ba, and Ce (as described above, Ni and Mn are the only components of M’, therefore these components are 0 mole %).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the current embodiment of Rempel to have a second composition represented by LiMO.sub.2, wherein M includes Ni and Mn as a substitution element in a range of 0.02 to 0.5 and Ni in a range of greater and 0 and less than 0.99. Further, it has been held that combining two embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other in a prior art patent does not require a leap of inventiveness and involves only routine skill in the art. It further would have been obvious to modify the ranges of Ni and Mn to stay within the claimed ranges as a prima facie case of obviousness exists “in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” (MPEP 2144.05.I) and the mole fraction of substitution elements such as Mn is a result effective variable of mole fraction of substitution elements in the total particle (see [0061] of Rempel). Further, Rempel teaches that modifications can be made (see [0123] of Rempel).
Regarding claim 11, in the case that Rempel fails to explicitly teach wherein a c-axis length (d-spacing) value of the primary particles present in the surface portion of the secondary particle of the cathode active material is greater than or equal to 4.88 Å.
Rempel teaches wherein nickel-based composite metal oxide doped with manganese (second composition, see [0036], see [0047] where the second composition comprises lithium/nickel/oxygen, see [0059] the second composition is a composite oxide, see [0062] shows doping with Mn, see [0099] gives a specific example of the second composition being a nickel composite oxide doped with Mn) is present in the grain boundaries (grain boundaries, see [0101]) and surface (surface of crystallites, see [0070] where the grain boundary is between adjacent crystallites and on a surface of the crystallites) of the primary particles (primary crystallites, see [0036]), therefore it is the examiner’s position that if measured in the same way one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the c-axis length (d-spacing) value of the primary particles present in the surface portion of the secondary particle of the cathode active material to overlap or be greater than 4.88 Å.
8. Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rempel et al. (Pub. No. US 20200243859 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoo et al. (Pub. No. US 20200328414 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Rempel fails to teach wherein the cathode active material has a concentration gradient in which the concentration of manganese continuously decreases from the surface portion of the secondary particle to the central portion of the secondary particle. Note the relative surface portion will be interpreted under 1st interpretation.
However, Yoo teaches wherein the cathode active material (cathode active material, see [0042] where the cathode active material particle is the lithium metal oxide particle with coating) has a concentration gradient (concentration gradient region, see [0049]) in which the concentration of manganese continuously decreases (amount of Mn increased from central to surface, see [0064]), from the surface portion (surface, see [0064]) of the secondary particle (lithium metal oxide, see [0079] the lithium metal oxide particle is a secondary particle) to the central portion (central portion, see [0064]) of the secondary particle (lithium metal oxide, see [0079] the lithium metal oxide particle is a secondary particle).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Rempel such that the secondary particle has a concentration gradient with manganese concentration decreasing from the surface portion to the central portion as taught by Yoo to reduce defects from penetration such as ignition or short-circuit through the surface and enhance lifespan of lithium secondary battery (see [0064] of Yoo). Further, Rempel teaches that modifications can be made (see [0123] of Rempel).
9. Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rempel et al. (Pub. No. US 20200243859 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (Pub. No. US 20140072874 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Rempel fails to teach wherein the surface portion further includes a lithium manganese oxide. Note the surface portion is interpreted under the 1st interpretation.
However, Kim teaches a surface portion (coating layer, see Fig. 1, see [0027]) further includes a lithium manganese oxide (LiMnO.sub.2/LiMn.sub.2O.sub.4, see [0027]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Rempel to add a coating layer of LiMnO.sub.2 or LiMn.sub.2O.sub.4 to the outer surface of the secondary particle as taught by Kim to improve surface electrical conductivity, life characteristics, and high-rate characteristics (see [0025] of Kim). Further, Rempel teaches that modifications can be made (see [0123] of Rempel). Further, Rempel teaches the secondary particle can be coated (see [0076] of Rempel).
Regarding claim 9, Rempel in view of Kim teaches wherein the lithium manganese oxide (LiMnO.sub.2/LiMn.sub.2O.sub.4, see [0027]) includes LiMnO.sub.2 (LiMnO.sub.2, see [0027]), LiMn.sub.2O.sub.4 (LiMn.sub.2O.sub.4, see [0027]), or a combination thereof.
10. Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rempel et al. (Pub. No. US 20200243859 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (Pub. No. US 20230275226 A1).
Regarding claim 12 Rempel fails to teach wherein a size of the primary particles of the cathode active material is 100 nm to 800 nm.
However, Wang teaches wherein a size of the primary particles of the cathode active material is 100 nm to 800 nm (100 nm or greater and 2000 nm or less, see [0183]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Rempel such that the average primary particle size is between 100 and 2000 nm as taught by Wang to suppress performance degradation of the battery (see [0183] of Wang). Further it would have been obvious to modify the average primary particle size to stay within the claimed range of 100 nm to 800 nm as Wang teaches average primary particle size is a result effective variable of powder filling property and specific surface area (see [0183] of Wang). Further, Rempel teaches that modifications can be made (see [0123] of Rempel).
Allowable Subject Matter
11. Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
12. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-12, and 20 have been considered but 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
13. 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 DOUGLAS CALEB MARROQUIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0166. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30-5:00 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, Tiffany Legette can be reached at 571-270-7078. 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.
/DOUGLAS C MARROQUIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723