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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 6, 10, and 13 are amended. Claim 3 is cancelled. Claims 1 – 2 and 4-15, as filed 28 October 2025, are examined herein. No new matter is included.
Response to Arguments
The objection to claim 13 is withdrawn.
Regarding the rejection under 35 USC 103, Applicant argues that the cited references do not teach or suggest an Al molar ratio greater than 0 and less than 0.01. This argument is moot in light of a newly cited reference, Pullen.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 includes the limitation “a lithium composite transition metal oxide in the form of at least one of single particles or pseudo-single particles, wherein each single particle consists of one nodule, wherein each pseudo-single particle is a composite of 30 or fewer nodules” Para [0028] of the instant specification states: "single particle" is a particle consisting of a single nodule. A "nodule" according to the present disclosure may be a single crystal lacking any crystalline grain boundary, or alternatively may be a polycrystal in which grain boundaries do not appear when observe in a field of view of 5000x to 20000x using a scanning electron microscope (SEM). … a "pseudo-single particle" refers to a particle which is a composite formed of 30 or less nodules.” Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the pseudo-single particle of claim 1 includes “a secondary particle comprising 30 or fewer primary particles.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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(s) 1-2, 4-8, 10, and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leng (US 20210167366 A1) in view of Pullen (US 10501335 B1).
Regarding claims 1- 5, Leng teaches a positive electrode active material (abstract), comprising:
a lithium composite transition metal oxide in the form of at least one of single particles or pseudo-single particles, wherein each single particle consists of one nodule, wherein each pseudo-single particle is a composite of 30 or fewer nodules ([0019] “second lithium nickel transition metal oxide is a single crystal or single-crystal-like morphological particle.”
Leng does not explicitly teach a specific embodiment wherein the lithium composite transition metal oxide includes Ni, Co, Mn, and Al, wherein a molar ratio of the number of moles of Ni to the total number of moles of all metal elements except lithium in the lithium composite transition metal oxide is 0.83 to less than 1, a molar ratio of the number of moles of Co to the number of moles of Mn is 0.5 to less than 1, and a molar ratio of the number of moles of Co to the number of moles of Al is 5 to 15.
However, Leng teaches [0038-0040] the positive electrode material formula Li1+a1Nix1Coy1Mnz1Mb102-e1Xe1 where -0.1 < a1 < 0.1 , 0.5≤ x1 ≤ 0.95 , 0.05≤y1≤0.2 , 0.03 ≤ z1 ≤ 0.4, O ≤ b1 ≤ 0.05 , O ≤ e1 ≤ 0.1, and x1 + y1 + z1 + b1 = 1; where M is one or more of Al, Ti, Zr, Nb, Sr, Sc, Sb, Y, Ba, B, Co, and Mn, and X is F and/or Cl; at [0039 - 0040] Leng discloses a composition of LiNi0.85Co0.05Mn0.1O2, and further teaches that the disclosed composition may be modified by partial replacement with doped elements which may be Al. At [0038-0040] the Al dopant amount may have a molar ratio from 0 to 0.05. The composition of Leng encompasses the claimed limitations.
Leng does not appear to provide a specific motivation for partial substitution or doping with Aluminum and does not explicitly teach a molar ratio of the number of moles of Al to the total number of moles of all metal elements except lithium in the lithium composite transition metal oxide is greater than 0 to less than 0.01.
Pullen, in the field of (abstract) active secondary particles, discloses the use of grain boundary enrichment with aluminum to reduce impedance generation during cycling, therefore improving capacity and live cycle. FIG. 13 and FIG. 14 show that for a material with about 3 mole fraction Co, increasing the amount of aluminum from 0 mole fraction to 1 mole fraction results in decreased impedance growth and improved capacity retention. At column 10, lines 1-23, the Al mole fraction with respect to the total metal can be between 0.5 and 1 mole fraction. At col. 25 lines 23-39, Pullen discloses that the overall composition of the positive active material can be LiNi0.79Co0.11Mn0.09Al0.006O2. (Examiner notes that Pullen discloses a mole fraction of 0.079 for Ni, which is an obvious typographical error.) Examiner notes that Pullen at col. 25 is so close to the claimed composition that a person of ordinary skill would expect that Pullen’s teaching of the importance of aluminum mole fraction for capacity and live cycle would apply to the claimed composition.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to optimize the aluminum mole fraction of Leng based on the teaching of Pullen, with a reasonable expectation of selecting a value falling within the claimed range.
This also meets the limitation of claim 2 (a molar ratio of the number of moles of Co to the total number of moles of all metal elements except lithium … is greater than 0 and less than or equal to 0.1); the limitation of claim 4 (a molar ratio of the number of moles of Mn to the total number of moles of all metals except lithium … is greater than 0 and less than 0.17); and the limitation of claim 5 (a sum of a molar ratio of the number of moles of Co and a molar ratio of the number of moles of Al to the total number of moles of all metals except lithium … is less than 0.12.)
PNG
media_image1.png
48
348
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Leng in view of Pullen teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Regarding the limitation wherein the lithium composite transition metal oxide is represented by [Formula 1] wherein in Formula 1, M' is one or more selected from the group consisting of W, Zr, Y, Ba, Ca, Ti, Mg, Ta, and Nb, and 0 ≤ x ≤ 0.5, 0.83 ≤ a ≤ 1, 0≤ b ≤ 0.1, 0 ≤ c ≤ 0.17, 0 ≤ d ≤ 0.02, 0 ≤ e ≤ 0.05, b<c, 0.5≤b/c<1, and 5≤b/d≤ 10, Leng in view of Pullen as set forth in claim 1 renders obvious the selection of a composition falling within the claimed ranges for Li, Ni, Co, Mn, and Al. Regarding M1, at [0038-0039] Leng further discloses that M’ may be selected from Al, Zr, Y, Ba, Ti, and Nb, where Zr, Y, Ba, Ti, and Nb are candidates within the scope of the claimed list of alternatives, and the total mole fraction of M’ is between 0 and 0.05. Because an Al mole fraction of 0.01 has been rendered obvious above, a person of ordinary skill would expect that the remaining M’ dopants should total 0.04, therefore meeting the instant claim limitation.
While Leng does not teach a specific embodiment having the substitution or doping with Zr, Y, Ba, Ti, and Nb at a mole fraction of M’ is between 0 and 0.05, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to select dopants selected from Zr, Y, Ba, Ti, and Nb for the composition as rendered obvious above, because these elements represent a finite number of identified, predictable potential solution, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 7, Leng in view of Pullen teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Leng further teaches wherein the nodules have an average particle diameter of 0.5 µm to 3 µm. ([0036] the size of the primary particle is larger than 1 µm.) At [0036] Leng discloses the by adjusting and controlling particle size distribution of a mixed positive electrode active material and OI value of the positive electrode sheet, the problem of particle cracking of the positive electrode active material particles is effectively restrained.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to optimize the particle size of modified Leng with a reasonable expectation of successfully restraining cracking of particles, thus meeting the instant claim limitation.
Regarding claim 8, Leng in view of Pullen teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Leng further teaches wherein the lithium composite transition metal oxide has an average particle diameter D50 of 2 µm to 6 µm. ([0047] 5-6 µm)
Regarding claim 10, Leng in view of Pullen teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Leng further teaches a coating layer formed on the particle surface of the lithium composite transition metal oxide, wherein the coating layer includes one or more coating elements selected from the group consisting of Al, Ti, B, P, Co, Zn, Zr, and Si, which are candidates are within the scope of the claimed list of alternatives. ([0050] positive electrode coating … alumina, … which reduces side reactions … inhibiting gas production.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to coat the positive active material of modified Leng with Leng’s alumina coating, with a reasonable expectation of successfully inhibiting gas production.
Regarding claim 12, Leng in view of Pullen teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Leng further teaches wherein the positive electrode active material has a press density of 2 to 4 g/cc. ([0012] compaction density of 3.3 g/cm3 -3.5 g/cm3.) Examiner notes that the limitation wherein the press density is measured after pressing a powder of the positive electrode active material at a pressure of 2000 kgf does not add any additional structural limitation to the claim other than the press density, and therefore does not have patentable weight.
Regarding claim 13, Leng in view of Pullen teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Leng does not explicitly teach wherein the positive electrode active material has a volume ratio of particles having a particle diameter of less than 1 µm of 1 vol% or less in a volume cumulative particle size distribution measured after pressing a powder of the positive electrode active material at a pressure of 9 tons.
At [0036] Leng discloses that the size of the primary particle is larger than 1 µm and “by
adjusting and controlling particle size distribution of a mixed positive electrode active material and OI value of the positive electrode sheet, the problem of particle cracking of the positive electrode active material particles is effectively restrained.”
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to select primary particles larger than 1 µm and to optimize particle OI as taught by Leng, with a reasonable expectation of restraining particle cracking, thus meeting the instant claim limitation. (Examiner notes that if the particles are larger than 1 µm and there is a very low rate of particle cracking, then the volume ratio of particles less than 1 µm will be very low.
Regarding claim 14, Leng in view of Pullen teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Leng further teaches a positive electrode active material layer including the positive electrode active material of claim 1. (abstract)
Regarding claim 15, Leng in view of Pullen teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Leng further teaches lithium secondary battery comprising the positive electrode of claim 14. ([0019] lithium-ion battery)
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leng (US 20210167366 A1) in view of Pullen (US 10501335 B1) as set forth in claim 1, above, and in further view of Park (US 20210135187 A1, with priority to WO 2019221497 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Leng in view of Pullen teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Leng does not explicitly teach wherein the lithium composite transition metal oxide has an average crystallite size of 150 nm to 300 nm.
Park, in a similar field of endeavor, discloses a positive electrode active material having a crystallite size of 180 nm to 220 nm, which falls within the instant claim limitation. Park further discloses that the positive electrode active material satisfying the above crystallite size according to an embodiment of the present invention may suppress the particle breakage caused by rolling, and life characteristics and stability may be improved.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to select Park’s crystallite size for the positive electrode active material of modified Leng, with a reasonable expectation of successfully suppressing particle breakage and improving stability.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leng (US 20210167366 A1) in view of Pullen (US 10501335 B1) as set forth in claim 1, above, and in further view of Seino (US 20120028128 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Leng in view of Pullen teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. However, Leng does not teach wherein the positive electrode active material has a BET specific surface area of 0.1 m2/g to 1 m2/g.
Seino, in a related field of endeavor, discloses that the positive electrode active material has a BET specific surface area of 0.2 m2/g to 0.8 m2/g, which falls within the claimed range. Referring to Table 1 of Seino, this active material produced a positive electrode with excellent discharge capacity.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to select particles meeting Seino’s surface area range for the positive electrode active material of modified Leng, with a reasonable expectation of achieving excellent discharge capacity.
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 CLAIRE A RUTISER whose telephone number is (571)272-1969. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM M-F.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at 571-270-1292. 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.
CLAIRE A. RUTISER
Examiner
Art Unit 1751
/C.A.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/Haroon S. Sheikh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751