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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/08/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 objected to because of the following informalities: claim 7 recites ppm concentration values for aluminum, sulfur, and boron in the cathode active material. However, it is not stated what the ppm concentration is relative to. Appropriate correction is required to avoid a possible 112 rejection.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 7 does not reference what the ppm concentration is in reference to. However, the instant specification recites “The lithium-aluminum-sulfur-boron oxide may be present in a non-crystallized amorphous state, an Al content relative to a weight of the lithium composite oxide may be in a range from 500 ppm to 3,000 ppm, an S content may be in a range from 200 ppm to 3,000 ppm, and a B content may be in a range from 300 ppm to 1,000 ppm” [0081, instant specification].
The examiner will be considering Al content relative to the weight of the lithium composite oxide. The examiner was not able to find where the ppm concentration of sulfur and boron are explicitly stated to be in relation to. In an effort to expedite prosecution, the examiner will presently be interpreting them in relation to the lithium composite oxide.
Drawings
The drawings are filed 12/07/2022 are objected to, see below for details. 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.
The presented spectrum In figure 4 (b) and (c) are too low resolution to properly discern what is present without guessing. Please resubmit this figure in a higher resolution image.
PNG
media_image1.png
560
925
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In figure 7, the presented numerical values are illegible, please resubmit the figure with clear values. Additionally, the y-axis appears to have the same values on both sides. If these are duplicate values please remove the values on the right side. If there is meant to be two vertical axes then please provide an axis title for the second (right) set of values.
PNG
media_image2.png
670
887
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 03/20/2026 has been acknowledged. The previous objection towards the Title has been withdrawn.
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, 9, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeshi (US20140154581A1) and in view of Cho (US20160181611A1) and as evidenced by Baek (US20210151754A1).
Claim 1, Takeshi cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery [abstract, Takeshi], comprising: a lithium composite oxide [abstract, 0027-0030, Takeshi]; and a covering layer comprising lithium [abstract, 0011, 0022, Takeshi], a metal 3+ cation preferably Al3+ [abstract, 0015, 0022, 0053, table 1, Takeshi], and a non-metal element from at least one of sulfur and boron to be used as an anion [abstract, 0011-0015, 0022, Takeshi], that is formed on a surface of the lithium composite oxide [abstract, 0011, 0049-0052, 0090-0091, Takeshi], wherein the lithium composite oxide comprises nickel [0029-0030, Takeshi], and a mole fraction of nickel in the lithium composite oxide is 0.7 or more among elements other than lithium and oxygen [0029-0030, Takeshi discloses the use of various lithium composite oxides comprising nickel and notes that this includes materials such as LiNi0.85Co0.10Al0.05O2], wherein the lithium composite oxide has a structure of a secondary particle structure in which primary particles are aggregated [0039, Takeshi teachings read on the claimed limitation as they disclose lithium composite oxide may be particles that agglomerated to form secondary particles].
The examiner notes that Takeshi teaches of a lithium-aluminum-composite-oxide that uses at least one of sulfur or boron as an anion source and discloses explicit examples of lithium-aluminum-sulfur-oxide and lithium-aluminum-boron-oxide [0011-0015, table 1, Takeshi]. While Takeshi is silent to an explicit example of a coating layer with a lithium-aluminum-sulfur-boron-oxide. One of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to use both sulfur and boron as an anion in a lithium-aluminum-composite-oxide to forma lithium-aluminum-sulfur-boron-oxide. Doing so would provide anions known to form stable coating film with Al3+ in a lithium-aluminum-composite-oxide [0093-0094, Takeshi].
Takeshi is explicitly silent to: 1) wherein the Li-Al-S-B-O is present at an interface between the primary particles and inner region of the secondary particles. 2) 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 [0013, Cho], comprised of secondary particles formed from aggregated primary particles [0043, Cho]. 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].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious for the Li-Al-S-B-O to be present at an interface between the primary and secondary particles. 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].
In regards to 2) Takeshi discloses that an first aqueous solution containing a cation (i.e. Al3+) and a second aqueous solution containing an anion (i.e. SO4 2-) may be stirred and mixed with the lithium composite oxide as a means of uniformly covering the lithium composite oxide with the metal cation (i.e. Al 3+) and anion (SO4 2-) where it is preferable for the anion is contacted to the lithium powder followed by the cation [0118-0123, Takeshi], then drying of the wet material [0128, Takeshi].
While not required for this deficiency, the examiner notes that one may then coat the obtained and dried active material and coat it with a boron source followed by heat-treatment at elevated temperatures in order to incorporate boron into a coating layer, as evidenced by Baek [0054, 0082, Baek].
The instant specification describes forming an aqueous solution in which the lithium composite oxide (with a mole fraction of Ni being 0.83) is mixed with the metal (Al 3+) cation and anion (SO4 2-) followed by drying and addition of a boron source and heat-treatment at an elevated temperature [00136-00141, instant spec].
While the instant specification does not note the exact concentration of Al and S in the composite layer, dependent claim 7 requires Al in 500-3000ppm and S in 200-3000 ppm.
The examiner notes that Takeshi teaches of a molar ratio of each of the metal cation and anion to the lithium composite oxide to be 0.001-0.03 [0107, Takeshi]. The examiner notes these ranges overlap with the applicant’s claimed range. For instance, a 0.005 molar ratio of sulfur the anion to lithium composite oxide would result in 0.005 moles of sulfur (MW = 32.06 g/mol) per mol of LiNi0.85Co0.10Al0.05O2 (LNCAO, MW = 96.07 g/mol).
0.005
m
o
l
s
u
l
f
u
r
(
32.06
g
s
u
l
f
u
r
m
o
l
s
u
l
f
u
r
)
1
m
o
l
L
N
C
A
O
(
96.07
g
L
N
C
A
O
m
o
l
L
N
C
A
O
)
x
100
%
=
0.167
%
=
1670
p
p
m
s
u
l
f
u
r
For clarity of the record, when the mole ratio is 0.001 the sulfur ppm is 334 ppm and when the ratio is 0.009 the sulfur ppm is 3000.
Prior to the effective filing date, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill within the arts to modify Takeshi such that first wet coat the lithium containing compound with the Al cation and SO4 anion as this would allow for the aluminum and sulfur to uniformly coat the lithium composite oxide [0120, Takeshi]. One would additionally find it obvious to have the sulfur concentration be between 334 ppm - 3000ppm (mole ratio 0.001-0.009) as these are known ranges used to produce a coating layer over a lithium composite oxide [0107, Takeshi].
The examiner notes that a lithium composite oxide with a nickel concentration of ~0.85 compared to the other transition metals mixed in a sulfur and aluminum aqueous solution such that the sulfur concentration is between 334-3000ppm will inherently be wherein, in an energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS) spectrum for a cross section of the lithium composite oxide, a peak intensity of a sulfur component at the interface of the primary particles is greater than an average value of peak intensities of Ni at an inside of the primary particles [00180, instant spec].
There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the relevant time, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377, 67 USPQ2d 1664, 1668 (Fed. Cir. 2003), see MPEP 2112.II.
"[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999), see MPEP 2112.I.
“Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), see MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claim 2, modified Takeshi discloses the cathode active material, wherein the lithium-aluminum-sulfur-boron oxide is amorphous [0130, Takeshi].
Regarding claim 3, modified Takeshi 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 [0011, 0094, Takeshi].
Regarding claim 4, modified Takeshi 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 [0120, Takeshi].
Regarding claim 9, modified Takeshi discloses a specific embodiment the cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery, wherein the lithium composite oxide (i) is a compound represented by the following formula. Lia(NixMnyCoz)MebO2 where Me is at least one member selected from the group consisting of Sr and Al. Further, 0.95≦a≦1.1, 0≦x≦1, 0≦y≦1, 0≦z≦1, 0≦b≦0.3, and 0.90≦x+y+z+b≦1.05 [0029, Takeshi].
This overlaps with the applicant’s claimed range of wherein the lithium composite oxide is represented by LiaNiyMzO2-β, wherein M includes at least one selected from the group consisting of Co, Mn, Al, and Sr, and 0.7≤a≤1.2, -0.1≤β≤0.5, 0.7≤y≤0.98, and 0.98< y+z≤1.1.
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).
Furthermore, Takeshi notes as an example that one could use LiNi0.85Co0.10Al0.05O2 [0030, Takeshi].
Regarding claim 11, modified Takeshi discloses a lithium secondary battery, comprising: a cathode comprising the cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery [0143, Takeshi]; and an anode facing the cathode [0143, Takeshi].
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Takeshi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Baek (US20210151754A1).
Regarding claim 7, and as discussed above in the rejection of claim 1, modified Takeshi discloses modified Takeshi discloses using a 0.001-0.03 mole ratio of the anion to lithium composite oxide [0107, Takeshi].
For clarity of the record, when the mole ratio is 0.001 the sulfur ppm is 334 ppm and when the ratio is 0.009 the sulfur ppm is 3000.
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).
In regards to the content of the aluminum Takeshi discloses using a 0.001-0.03 mole ratio of a metal cation (Al, MW = 26.98 g/mol) to lithium composite oxide (LNCAO, MW = 96.07 g/mol) [0107, Takeshi].
For clarity of the record, when the mole ratio is 0.001 the aluminum ppm is 280 ppm and when the ratio is 0.011 the aluminum ppm is 3100.
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).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill within the arts to have a mole ratio of aluminum to lithium composite oxide ranging from 560 ppm – 2800 ppm (mole ratio 0.002-0.010) as these are known ranges used to produce a coating layer over a lithium composite oxide [0106, Takeshi].
Takeshi as presently modified is silent to the content of boron in the lithium-aluminum-sulfur-boron-oxide.
However, Baek discloses a lithium composite oxide with a mole fraction of nickel in the lithium composite oxide is 0.6 or more among elements other than lithium and oxygen [0026-0027, Baek]. Wherein a boron (and/or aluminum) source is dry coated onto the lithium composite oxide and heat-treated to produce a coating layer [0011-0012, 0051, 0082-0084, Baek]. The ppm of boron to lithium composite oxide ranges from 500-1000 ppm [0082-0084, Baek], in one explicit example both boron (500 ppm) and aluminum (1000ppm) are present [0084, Baek].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts prior would find it obvious to modify Takeshi such that the concentration of boron to lithium composite oxide was between 500-1000. Doing so provides a known concentration of boron for a coating layer that can be formed on a lithium composite oxide with high nickel concentration [0082-0084, Baek].
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 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 09/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See below for details.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Eom and Cho have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on these reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
For clarity of the record, the examiner notes that Cho’611 is still used in the present office action and is now referred to as Cho.
In regards to applicant’s arguments (1) are not persuasive as they rely on arguments centered around Eom.
In regards to applicant’s arguments (2), (3), and (4) are not persuasive as they rely on arguments centered around Cho
In regards to applicant’s arguments (6), the arguments against Cho’611 are not persuasive as it attacks the references individually.
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).
The applicant’s arguments focus on Cho’611 not teaching of sulfur being present in the coating layer, however, Takeshi is relied upon to teach this feature. Applicant’s arguments fail to consider the broader teachings of Cho’611 which notes the benefits of having a coating layer being present on the surface of primary particles. Namely, one that can protect the primary particles from coming in contact with the electrolyte and prevent deteriorating performances of the battery [0047-0048, Cho’611]. The examiner maintains that prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious for the Li-Al-S-B-O to be present at an interface between the primary and secondary particles.
In regards to (6), the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive as Eom is no longer relied upon.
In regards to (7), the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive in light of the teachings of Takeshi and Cho (formerly Cho’611) as applied in the rejection of claim 1.
The examiner maintains their rejection
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Choi (US20220013781A1) and Cho (US20220384792A1) discloses using a lithium composite oxide with a lithium-aluminum-boron-oxide coating layer. Kweon (US20020076486A1) teaches coating techniques for coating lithium composite oxide with Al and B coating layers.
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