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 .
Remarks
Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 2-4 and 7-11 are as previously presented. Claims 5-6 are cancelled. Claims 1-4 and 7-11 are presently examined.
Status of objections and rejections
The rejection below has been modified as necessitated by the applicant’s amendments.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed on 05/12/2026 cites an Office Action from the Korean Patent Office. The examiner was unable to consider this reference as an English translation of the office action was not provided.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Lithium-aluminum-sulfur-boron oxide is clearly the main feature of the invention and as such should appear in the title. The feature may be fully written out as noted above or may be abbreviated (e.g. Li-Al-S-B-O)
The following title is suggested:
“Lithium-aluminum-sulfur-boron oxide on the surface of a cathode active material for lithium secondary battery, method of manufacturing the same and lithium secondary battery including the same.”
“Lithium-aluminum-sulfur-boron oxide coated cathode active material for lithium secondary battery, method of manufacturing the same and lithium secondary battery including the same. “
These are just suggestions and the applicant may amend them and present their own suggestion.
Claim Interpretation
In claim 1 lines 10-13, reproduced below, the applicant claims a method of measurement for determining the content of sulfur and nickel in the final product.
PNG
media_image1.png
202
887
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The examiner notes that if in the final product, one has a greater concentration of sulfur to nickel within the lithium composite oxide, then the above limitations are met. The method of measurement does not impart a structure onto the final product. As such, if the final product possesses the claimed features then one may choose to use any suitable measurement method to observe these features and such measurement method would not further limit the compositional limitations of the final product.
The examiner notes the breath of “a cross section of the lithium composite oxide” is such that any cross section of the material may be considered.
For the above reasonings the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed limitations are met if a sulfur component at the interface of the primary particles is greater than the nickel component at an inside of the primary particle.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-9, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eom (US20220231281A1) and in view of Cho (US20100183922A1) and Cho’611 (US20160181611A1).
Claim 1, Eom discloses a cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery [abstract, Eom], comprising: a lithium composite oxide [0013-0022, Eom]; and a Li-M1-M2-O coating layer wherein M1 = Na and/or Al and M2 = B [0013, Eom]. Eom additionally discloses a lithium-aluminum-boron oxide (Li-Al-B-O) formed on a surface of the lithium composite oxide [0036, 0067-0069, 0085, Eom].
Eom discloses that the solution for the coating element M1 may include starting materials with sulfur present which may allow for it to be incorporated into the coating layer.
But Eom is explicitly silent to: 1) The presence of sulfur in the coating layer. 2) the lithium composite oxide being secondary particles comprised of aggregated primary particles. 3) wherein the Li-Al-S-B-O is present at an interface between the primary particles and inner region of the secondary particles. 4) the ratio of sulfur to nickel at a cross section of the lithium composite oxide.
In regards to 1), Cho discloses a lithium composite oxide [0065-0069, Cho] which is coated by a surface treatment layer comprising a compound with a general formula of MXOk wherein M may include Al, X may be an element capable of forming a double bond with oxygen (i.e. P, S, W), and k is from 2-4 [0054-0055, Cho]. Cho further notes that surface treatment layer may be a solid-solution including Li-M’-M-X-O [0070, Cho]. Such that, M’ may be Al, M may be a group 13 element (the examiner notes boron is a group 13 element), X may be an element that can form a double bond with O (e.g. S), and O [0055, 0070, Cho].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Eom such that the coating layer (Li-Al-B-O) included sulfur such that the Li-Al-B-S-O. Having an element that can form double bonds with O (e.g. P, S) may promote the mobility of lithium ions that the capacity at the high rate can be maintained at a high level and provide thermal stability [0056, 0132, Cho].
In regards to 2) and 3), Cho’611 discloses a lithium composite oxide [0013, Cho’611], comprised of secondary particles formed from aggregated primary particles [0043, Cho’611]. The active material further comprises a coating layer (12a) on the surface of the primary (11) and secondary (13) particles [0006, 0061-0064, 0073, 0078-0079, fig. 1, Cho’611].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to 1) have secondary particles formed from an aggregation of primary particles 2) the Li-Al-S-B-O to be present at an interface between the primary and secondary particles.
The examiner notes that the aggregation of primary particles to form secondary particles is a standard method and thus obvious. By have the primary particles with a coating layer (“Li-Al-S-B-O”) one can protect the primary particles from coming in contact with the electrolyte and prevent deteriorating performances of the battery [0047-0048, Cho’611].
In regards to 4) Eom teaches of a variety of lithium transition metal oxides for positive electrode active materials [0004, Eom]. Examples include LiCoO2 , a lithium-manganese composite metal oxide (LiMnO2 , LiMn2 O4 or the like), a lithium iron phosphate compound (LiFePO4 or the like) or a lithium nickel composite metal oxide (LiNiO2 LiNi1-α Coα O2 (α=0.1 to 0.3)) [0005, Eom].
The examiner notes that if no Ni is present in the lithium composite oxide but sulfur is present in the Li-Al-B-S-O layer then when viewed in a cross section, the concentration (“peak intensity”) of sulfur at the interface of the primary particles are greater than the concentration (“peak intensity”) of nickel inside the primary particles.
As such, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to use a known lithium composite oxide such as, lithium cobalt/manganese/iron compounds as an active material as these are art recognized equivalence for the same purpose, see MPEP 2144.06.
Regarding claim 2, Eom as modified above is silent to the Li-Al-B-S-O being amorphous.
However, Cho discloses that their MXOk coating layer may be in an amorphous phase [0088, Cho].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Eom such that its Li-Al-B-S-O coating layer is amorphous. As this is a known crystallin phase that can be used as a coating layer [0088, Cho].
The examiner notes that it would further be “obvious-to-try” an amorphous layer, see MPEP 2143.I.E. Only three layers types of layers are possible: amorphous, semi-crystallin, and crystallin. All three types of crystallin layers may be used to coat an active material and provide a predictable result of the electrode performing its basic functions.
Regarding claim 3, Eom as modified above discloses the cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery, wherein the lithium-aluminum-sulfur-boron oxide serves as a coating layer of the lithium composite oxide [0066-0069, Eom].
Regarding claim 4, Eom as modified above discloses the cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the lithium-aluminum-sulfur-boron oxide entirely covers the surface of the lithium composite oxide [0009-0010, 0044-0045, Eom].
Regarding claim 7, Eom as modified above discloses that in the Li-M1-M2-O the concentrations of M1 (“Al”) is from 200-7000 ppm and that M2 (“B”) was 500-1500 ppm [0087-0088, Eom].
Cho general formula of MXOk teaches of X and M being present in equal concentrations [0054-0055]. It would be obvious for sulfur to be present in an equal ppm concentration of Al and B as taught by Eom. As such sulfur would be present in a range of 700-8500 ppm.
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 (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 8, Eom as modified above discloses the cathode active material, wherein the lithium composite oxide comprises nickel, and a mole fraction of nickel in the lithium composite oxide is 0.7 or more among elements other than lithium and oxygen [0013-0022, Eom].
Regarding claim 9, Eom as modified above discloses a specific embodiment the cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the lithium composite oxide is represented LiNi0.86 Co0.05 Mn0.07 Al0.02 O2 [0126, Eom].
Eom’s disclosed example anticipates the applicants claimed Chemical Formula 1:[Chemical Formula 1] LiαNiyMzO2-β wherein, in Chemical Formula 1, M includes at least one selected from the group consisting of Co, Mn, and Al and α=0.1, β=0, y=86, and y+z = 1.
Regarding claim 11, Eom as modified above discloses a lithium secondary battery, comprising: a cathode comprising the cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery [0103, Eom]; and an anode facing the cathode [0103, Eom].
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Eom as applied to claim 1 above, and as evidenced by Kinoshita (DOI: 10.1016/0025-5408(79)90016-3) and Zhang (CN120413635A).
Regarding claim 10, in regards to the following limitations “The cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein an equivalence point is formed at pH 8.5 or higher in a titration graph using 0.1N HCl.” The examiner notes the following: 1) As noted by the applicant, an additional equivalence points were present in their samples [00202-00203]. This peak is attributed to be the presence of LiAlO2 on the cathode active material [00202-00206]. 2)The limitation: “wherein an equivalence point is formed at pH 8.5 or higher in a titration graph using 0.1N HCl” is a product by process claimed.
In regards to 1) applicant’s synthesis for this active material includes mixing the lithium composite oxide with Al(OH)3 and lithium sulfate [00137]. It is known that lithium aluminate (LiAlO2) may be formed between Al(OH)3 (or other aluminum sources such as Al(NO)3 and Al2O3) and a lithium source (e.g. LiOH, Li2CO3) [as evidenced by Kinoshita]. Eom teaches that their lithium-aluminum-boron composite oxides may be synthesized by first mixing LiOH, the cathode material, and Al(OH)3.
Mixing of Al(OH)3 and a lithium source (i.e. LiOH) will result in the formation of LiAlO2. Any LiAlO2 that does not react with the boron and sulfur source will be left over as residual particles on the surface of the active material.
In both the instant application and Eom teach of mixing a cathode active material with Al(OH)3 and a lithium source. As such, both result in the formation of residual LiAlO2 deposited on the surface of the active material, see MPEP 2112.
In regards to 2) the concentration and type of acid do not influence the equivalence point of the sample being tested. As such, this is a product-by-process limitation. "[E]ven 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.", see MPEP 2113.
The examiner does note that a 0.1N (“mol/L”) HCl solution is known concentration for a residual alkali test as evidenced by Zhang [0067].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See below for details.
Applicants arguments ranging from the last paragraph of page 5 to the top of page 7 of the applicant’s remarks are unpersuasive. These arguments only argue the specification and fail to point out how the claimed limitations distinguish themselves from the prior art.
"Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.", see MPEP 2111.01.II
"Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims.", see MPEP 2145.VI.
On the first paragraph of page 7 applicant argues two features which they allege are not present in the prior art. 1) The lithium-aluminum-sulfur-boron oxide is present at an interface between the primary particles within an inner region of the secondary particle. 2) in an EDS spectrum for a cross section of the lithium composite oxide containing greater sulfur content than nickel.
Applicant then has a series of arguments in which they attack the references individually and do not consider the combination. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Furthermore, in regards to feature 2) the examiner notes that the claimed limitation is met if the condition outlined in the claim interpretation are met.
From the last paragraph of page 8 to page 10 applicant argues the inherency and alleged hindsight reasoning centered around if nickel is not present in the lithium composite oxide then are the limitations of feature 2) met. The examiner notes the following
In regards to the alleged improper hindsight reasoning, the examiner notes the following "[a]ny judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based on hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper." In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395, 170 USPQ 209, 212 (CCPA 1971), see MPEP 2145. X. A.
The examiner notes that all the rejection relies solely on information found within the art prior to the effective filing date. As such, no improper hindsight is present.
In regards to the applicant’s lack of inherency arguments the examiner notes the following. If one is measures the presence of two elements, A and B, but only element A is present and element B is not present. Then the peak/area/concentration/presence of element A is inherently greater than element B. The applicant’s arguments do not overcome this fact.
The examiner maintains their rejection
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 QUINTIN DALE ELLIOTT whose telephone number is (703)756-5423. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-6pm (MST).
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 5712705256. 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.
/QUINTIN D. ELLIOTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/STEWART A FRASER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights