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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/3/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS’ filed 12/31/2025 and 5/29/2026 have been considered by examiner.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 4/3/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 2, and 4-9 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (US 2019/0300382, hereinafter "Kim").
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a positive electrode active material (“cathode active material”) for a secondary battery (“lithium secondary battery”), the positive electrode active material comprising a lithium transition metal oxide including Ni, Co, and at least one selected from the group consisting of Al, Mn, and a combination thereof [Abstract; entire disclosure relied upon]. Kim discloses that the lithium transition metal oxide has a content of Ni of 80 mol% or more based on the total transition metal elements, which is within the recited range [Abstract]. Kim also teaches that the lithium transition metal oxide has a layered structure [0057]. In Example 1, Kim discloses a lithium transition metal oxide represented by the formula Li(Ni0.86Co0.1Mn0.02Al0.02)O2 [0093]. The number of moles of each element in the lithium transition metal oxide can be converted into weight by multiplying the number of moles by the element’s respective atomic mass. Ni has an atomic mass of 58.69 g/mol, which, for 0.86 moles of Ni in the lithium transition metal oxide of Example 1, results in 50.47 g of Ni. Al has an atomic mass of 26.98 g/mol, which, for 0.02 moles of Al in the lithium transition metal oxide of Example 1, results in 0.54 g of Al. Therefore, the weight ratio of Al:Ni is 0.01, or 1/100, which is within the recited range.
Kim also teaches an amount of cation mixing, or a cation mixing ratio of Ni cations in a Li layer, in the lithium transition metal oxide (i.e., the ratio of Li sites occupied by Ni instead of lithium among all Li sites in the lithium transition metal oxide) [0011]. Kim teaches that at different points throughout the process of forming the lithium transition metal oxide of Example 1, the amount of cation mixing is 1.0%, 1.4%, and 1.1%, all of which are within the recited range [Table 1].
Further regarding claim 2, as described in the rejection of claim 1 above, Kim teaches that the lithium transition metal oxide has a content of Ni of 80 mol% or more based on the total transition metal elements, which is within the recited range [Abstract].
Further regarding claim 4, Kim teaches that the lithium transition metal oxide may be represented by the formula LiaNi1-x1-y1-z1Cox1M1y1M2z1M3q1O2, wherein M1 may be a combination of Mn and Al, and M2 and M3 may each independently be Zr or Ti, and a, x1, y1, z1, and q1 satisfy the conditions 1.0≤a≤1.5, 0<x1≤0.2, 0<y1≤0.2, 0≤z1≤≤0.1, 0≤q1≤0.1, and 0<x1+y1+z1≤0.2 [0022]. Kim further teaches that the lithium transition metal oxide may be specifically a four-component lithium composite transition metal oxide necessarily including four components of nickel (Ni), cobalt (Co), manganese (Mn), and aluminum (Al) [0030]. Kim further teaches that the amount of Ni in the lithium transition metal oxide may further be limited to 0.8≤1-x1-y1-z1<1 [0025], and that the amount of Al and Mn in the lithium transition metal oxide may be further limited to 0.05≤x1≤0.2 [0027]. A reference disclosure can anticipate a claim when the reference describes the limitations but "'d[oes] not expressly spell out' the limitations as arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed arrangement or combination." Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381, 114 USPQ2d 1250, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2015) [MPEP 2131.02(III)]. See also in MPEP 2131.02(III) (emphasis added):
When a claimed compound is not specifically named in a reference, but instead it is necessary to select portions of teachings within the reference and combine them, e.g., select various substituents from a list of alternatives given for placement at specific sites on a generic chemical formula to arrive at a specific composition, anticipation can only be found if the classes of substituents are sufficiently limited or well delineated. Ex parte A, 17 USPQ2d 1716 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990). If one of ordinary skill in the art is able to "at once envisage" the specific compound within the generic chemical formula, the compound is anticipated. One of ordinary skill in the art must be able to draw the structural formula or write the name of each of the compounds included in the generic formula before any of the compounds can be "at once envisaged." One may look to the preferred embodiments to determine which compounds can be anticipated. In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 133 USPQ 275 (CCPA 1962)
Kim specifically teaches that the lithium transition metal oxide may be limited to only four transition metals (Ni, Co, Mn, Al), thus limiting the possible alternatives for M1 in the above-described formula [0030]. Furthermore, the ranges for the amounts of Ni and Mn and Al are well delineated [0025, 0027]. Therefore, a lithium transition metal oxide having a weight ratio of Al:Ni within the recited range, such may be at once envisaged from the generic formula taught by Kim. For example, LiNi0.88Co0.1Al0.01Mn0.01O2 may be at once envisaged from the generic formula taught by Kim. When the number of moles of Ni (0.88) is multiplied by the atomic mass (58.69 g/mol) of Ni and the number of moles of Al (0.01) is multiplied by the atomic mass (26.98 g/mol) of Al, the weight ratio of Al to Ni is 51.65:0.27, or 0.005, which is within the recited range.
Further regarding claim 5, as described in the rejection of claim 1 above, Kim teaches a lithium transition metal oxide represented by the formula Li(Ni0.86Co0.1Mn0.02Al0.02)O2 [0093], which satisfies the claimed chemical formula for a=1, x=0.86, M=Co and Mn, y=0.02, z=2. As shown in the rejection of instant claim 1, when x=0.86 and y=0.02, the weight ratio of Al to Ni in the lithium transition metal oxide is 0.01, which is within the recited range.
Further regarding claim 7, Kim teaches the cathode active material of claim 1, as described in the rejection of instant claim 1. Kim teaches that the cation mixing of Ni cations in the lithium layer is obtained by XRD (“X-ray diffraction”) analysis [0104]. Kim does not specifically teach a Rietveld refinement. However, the manner in which the ratio of lithium sites occupied by nickel instead of lithium among all lithium sites is obtained does not lend itself to any actual structure within the product claim, and absent objective evidence that other methods are not equivalent to those recited, other methods could also be relied upon so long as the ratio recited is met.
Regarding claim 9, Kim teaches the cathode active material of claim 1, as described in the rejection of instant claim 1. Kim also teaches a lithium secondary battery including a positive electrode (“cathode”) comprising the positive electrode active material of Example 1 (Li(Ni0.86Co0.1Mn0.02Al0.02)O2), and including a negative electrode (“anode”), wherein the negative electrode faces the positive electrode [0111-0113].
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2019/0300382).
Regarding claim 6, Kim teaches the cathode active material of claim 5, as described in the rejection of instant claim 5. Kim teaches that the lithium transition metal oxide may be represented by the formula LiaNi1-x1-y1-z1Cox1M1y1M2z1M3q1O2, wherein M1 may be a combination of Mn and Al, and M2 and M3 may each independently be Zr or Ti, and a, x1, y1, z1, and q1 satisfy the conditions 1.0≤a≤1.5, 0<x1≤0.2, 0<y1≤0.2, 0≤z1≤≤0.1, 0≤q1≤0.1, and 0<x1+y1+z1≤0.2 [0022], which overlaps the recited chemical formula. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) [MPEP 2144.05(I)].
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2019/0300382) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Oda et al. (US 2016/0172674, hereinafter "Oda").
Regarding claim 8, Kim teaches the cathode active material of claim 1, as described in the rejection of instant claim 1. Kim does not specifically teach the lithium transition metal oxide having a secondary particle structure in which primary particles are aggregated, and a crystallite size of a (104) plane of the primary particles being 150 nm or less.
Oda teaches analogous art of a cathode active material for a secondary battery which comprises lithium composite oxide particles having secondary particles in which primary particles are aggregated (“lithium transition metal oxide”) [Abstract; 0019; entire disclosure relied upon]. Oda also teaches that the lithium composite oxide particles have a crystallite size in the (104) plane controlled to be 40 nm to 80 nm, which is within the claimed range [0053].
Oda teaches that when the crystallite size of a (104) of a particle is 40 nm to 80 nm, the cathode active material made up of those particles has good crystallinity, and the secondary battery for which the cathode active material is used has good charging and discharging capacity, and good cycling characteristics [0053]. Oda also teaches that secondary particles sufficiently include grain boundaries between the primary particles of the secondary particles where electrolyte can penetrate, which greatly improves the output characteristics [0054, 0056].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery taught by Kim to have a secondary particle structure in which primary particles are aggregated and the primary particles have a crystallite size of a (104) plane in the range taught by Oda, in order to have good crystallinity in the cathode active material, good charging and discharging capacity and cycling characteristics, and improved output characteristics in the lithium secondary battery.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA F OROZCO whose telephone number is (571)272-0172. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571)272-1481. 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.
/M.F.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights