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 .
Summary
The Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments received April 28, 2026 have been entered into the file. Currently, claims 1 and 4-5 are amended; and claims 7-18 are withdrawn; resulting in claims 1-6 pending for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 8, 2026 has been considered by the examiner.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung, et al. (US 2005/0175897 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Jung teaches a positive active material for a rechargeable lithium battery that is a lithium/nickel-based compound with secondary particles having an average diameter of 5 µm to 20 µm (¶ [0019], Ln. 1-6), overlapping the claimed range of 1 µm to 8 µm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05(I)). Jung teaches that the lithium/nickel-based compound includes cobalt, and may include additional metals such as manganese, aluminum, chromium, iron, magnesium, strontium, and vanadium (¶ [0024]-[0025]). Specifically, the positive active material of Example 1 is Li1.02Ni0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 (meeting the limitations of claimed Formula 1, wherein a=1.02, x=0.8, y=0.1, M1 is Mn, z=0.1, and w=0), and the material is prepared by a process including a first heat treatment at 700 °C followed by a second heat treatment at 810 °C to form primary particles with an average diameter of 1 µm (¶ [0040], Ln. 1-9).
While it is acknowledged that a number of primary particles/an average particle diameter of the secondary particles in a range of 4 and 21 or a total number of primary particles in a range of 20 to 100 obtained from a cross-sectional SEM image of a single secondary particle is not expressly recited by the reference, Jung teaches the claimed composition and a substantially similar process which the instant specification indicates as essential to achieving the claimed properties. The number of primary particles/an average particle diameter of the secondary particles in a range of 4 and 21 and total number of primary particles in a range of 20 to 100 obtained from a cross-sectional SEM image of a single secondary particle would be implicitly achieved by a positive electrode active material with the same composition formed by substantially the same process. The instant specification has not provided adequate teachings that the claimed properties are only obtainable with the claimed material.
As evidence that the claimed properties are inherent to the positive active material taught by Jung, the reference teaches the claimed composition and a substantially similar process. Paragraph [0084] of the published instant specification teaches that for a positive electrode active material having a nickel content of 70 atm% or more, the secondary sintering must be performed at a temperature of 800 to 880 °C to achieve a ratio of a number of primary particles/an average particle diameter of the secondary particles in a range of 4 and 21. Further, paragraph [0052] of the published instant specification teaches that the number of primary particles is in a range of 20 to 100 as an amount greater than 100 does not achieve the effect of reducing the amount of gas generated.
With respect to the composition, Jung teaches a positive active material meeting the limitations of claimed Formula 1, specifically teaching the use of Li1.02Ni0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 in Example 1 (¶ [0040], Ln. 6-9), which has a nickel content of 70 atm% or more.
With respect to the process, Jung teaches that the second heat treatment is preferably performed at a temperature of 800 to 900 °C (¶ [0031], Ln. 1-4), specifically teaching 810 °C in Example 1 (¶ [0040], Ln. 5-6).
With respect to the amount of primary particles, Jung teaches an average particle diameter of primary particles of 1 µm to 4 µm and an average particle diameter of secondary particles of 5 µm to 20 µm (¶ [0019], Ln. 1-7), further teaching that when the average diameter of the secondary particles is over 20 µm, indicating a higher amount of primary particles agglomerated in a secondary particle, the secondary particles break more easily, which generates gas (¶ [0019], Ln. 10-14). Thus, the positive active material taught by Jung would implicitly achieve the claimed properties of a number of primary particles/an average particle diameter of the secondary particles in a range of 4 and 21 and a total number of primary particles in a range of 20 to 100 obtained from a cross-sectional SEM image of a single secondary particle.
Regarding claim 2, Jung teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches that the lithium/nickel-based compound may be represented by the chemical formula LixNi1-y-zCoyMnzMwO2-αAα, further teaching that M may be selected from Al, Cr, Fe, Mg, Sr, V, and rare earth elements and w is within 0 and 0.5, overlapping the claimed range for z2 of 0-0.05 (¶ [0024], Chemical Formula 5). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the lithium/nickel-based compound of Example 1 of Jung to include a compound including aluminum, as taught in Chemical Formula 5 of Jung. One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to include an additional element such as aluminum as the combination is taught by the reference. As manganese and the additional metal are optional components in the lithium-nickel-based compound, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to modify the compound of Example 1 to include a small amount of aluminum in addition the manganese, which is included at a molar content of 0.1, and thus, would result in a lithium-nickel-based compound meeting the limitations of claimed Formula 1-1.
Regarding claims 4-5, Jung teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. While it is acknowledged that a particle size change rate and particle size change amount are not expressly taught by the reference, Jung teaches the claimed composition and a substantially similar process which the instant specification indicates as essential to achieving the claimed properties. The particle size change rate of -5 to 4.5 and particle size change amount of 0 to 12 measured after pressurizing the positive electrode active material to 9 tons would be implicitly achieved by a positive electrode active material with the same composition formed by substantially the same process. The instant specification has not provided adequate teachings that the claimed properties are only obtainable with the claimed material.
As evidence that the claimed properties are inherent to the positive active material taught by Jung, the reference teaches the claimed composition and a substantially similar process. Paragraph [0058] of the published instant specification teaches that the particle size change rate and particle size change amount equations are satisfied since the particle breakage due to rolling during the preparation of the positive electrode is suppressed, reducing the amount of gas generated. Further, the process taught by the instant specification includes preparing a positive electrode active material meeting the limitations of claimed Formula 1, and performing a primary sintering in a temperature range of 600 to 800 °C followed by a secondary sintering in a temperature range of 800 to 880 °C (¶ [0082]-[0084] of the published instant specification).
With respect to the particle breakage and suppression of gas generated, Jung teaches that the average particle diameter of secondary particles of 5 µm to 20 µm, further teaching that the average diameter is within this range in order to prevent the particles from breaking easily and generating gas (¶ [0019], Ln. 1-14).
With respect to the process of making the positive electrode active material, Jung teaches that the positive active material of Example 1 is Li1.02Ni0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 (meeting the limitations of claimed Formula 1, wherein a=1.02, x=0.8, y=0.1, M1 is Mn, z=0.1, and w=0), and that the material is prepared by a process including a first heat treatment at 700 °C followed by a second heat treatment at 810 °C to form primary particles with an average diameter of 1 µm (¶ [0040], Ln. 1-9). Thus, the positive active material taught by Jung would implicitly achieve the claimed properties of a particle size change rate of -5 to 4.5 and particle size change amount of 0 to 12 measured after pressurizing the positive electrode active material to 9 tons.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung, et al. (US 2005/0175897 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Du, et al. (US 2022/0045324 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Jung teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Jung does not expressly teach a coating layer formed on the surface of the lithium/nickel-based compound.
Du teaches a positive electrode active material with compact structure and good pressure resistance (¶ [0005], Ln. 1-4). Du teaches that the positive electrode active material is a lithium transition metal oxide having a high nickel content ([0030], Ln. 1-4, ¶ [0031], Ln. 1-5). Du further teaches that the positive electrode active material includes an outer coating layer provided on the surface and including any one or a combination of Al, Ba, Zn, Ti, Co, W, Y, Si, Sn, B, and P (¶ [0007], Ln. 1-8). Specifically, the positive electrode active material in the first example is coated with Al2O3 (¶ [0080], Ln. 5-9). Du teaches that the coating layer has ionic conductivity and electronic conductivity, and avoids direct contact between the positive electrode active material and the electrolyte. Du teaches that this reduces side reactions with the electrolyte, avoids gas generation, and ensures lower impedance and better cycle and rate performance (¶ [0045], Ln. 8-16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the positive active material of Jung to include a coating layer on the surface of the lithium/nickel-based compound based on the teachings of Du. One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to apply the teachings of Du to the positive active material of Jung, as both references teach high nickel positive active materials for lithium batteries. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to include a coating layer taught by Du, such as Al2O3, in order to avoid direct contact between the positive electrode active material and the electrolyte, reducing side reactions with the electrolyte, avoiding gas generation, and ensuring lower impedance and better cycle and rate performance.
Response to Arguments
Response-Claim Objections
The previous objection to claim 1 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 in the response filed April 28, 2026.
Response-Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 112
The previous rejections of claims 1, 3-5, and by dependency 2-6 as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention are overcome by the Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 in the response filed April 28, 2026.
Response-Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103
In light of the Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 to specify the area captured in the SEM image of the positive electrode active material, the previous rejections of claims 1-3 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) over Ke, et al. (US 2022/0416236 A1) and of claims 4-5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Ke, have been withdrawn. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 4-5 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
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 SARAH J JACOBSON whose telephone number is (703)756-1647. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291.
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.
/SARAH J JACOBSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1785
/MARK RUTHKOSKY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights