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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3-6, and 8-20 are currently pending
Claim 1 is amended
Claim 7 has been canceled
Claims 11-18 have been previously withdrawn
Status of Amendments
The amendment filed 23 April 2026 has been fully considered, but does not place the application in condition for allowance.
This action has been made final.
Status of Objections and Rejections of the Office Action from 23 February 2026
The 103 rejection over Kim in view of Seo has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s argument. However, a new grounds of rejection over Kim in view of Kweon has been set forth.
The 103 rejections over Kim in view of Park, further in view of Du and further in view of Park ‘221 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment. However, a new grounds of rejection over Kim in view of Park and Lee, further in view of Du and further in view of Park ‘221, has been set forth, as necessitated by Applicant’s amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 3-6, 10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20200343553 A1), hereinafter Kim, in view of Park et al. (KR 20190116063 A, using US 20210005874 A1 as the English translation), further in view of Lee et al. (US 20140205898 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a positive-electrode active material [0009], comprising:
a positive-electrode active material matrix, in this case a lithium complex transition metal oxide; and
a coating layer, in this case a composite coating portion; wherein:
the coating layer coats a surface of the positive-electrode active material matrix [0019], and
the positive-electrode active material matrix is Li1+a[NixCoyMnzMb]O2, wherein 0<x<1, 0≤y<0.3, 0≤z<0.3, 0<a<0.2, 0<b<0.2, x+y+z+b=1,and M is selected from more than one of Mg, Ca, Sb, Ce, Ti, Zr, Al, Zn, and B, in this case LipNi1-(x1+y1+z1)Cox1May1Mbz1Mcq1O2 [Formula 1], wherein 0.9≤p≤1.5, 0<x1≤0.2, 0<y1≤0.2, 0≤z≤0.1, 0≤q≤0.1, and 0<x1+y1+z1≤0.35, Ma can be Mn, Mb can be Mg, Ce, Ti, Zr, or Al, and Mc can be Mg, Ti, Zr, or Al [0022], and
the coating layer contains a cobalt-containing compound, an aluminum-containing compound, and a boron-containing compound [0010].
Kim is silent as to a weight ratio of an element aluminum and an element boron in the coating layer being 0.5-1.2:1. However, Park teaches a coating raw material that may include B as a first coating element and Al as a second coating element [0065] in a weight ratio of 30:70-70:30 [0066]. This equates to a weight ratio of 0.43-2.33:1. 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, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Kim and Park are both considered to be equivalent to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of lithium composite transition metal oxide coating elements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the weight ratio of an element aluminum and an element boron in the coating of Kim to be 0.43-2.33:1, as taught by Park. Doing so would have improved the ability of the coating to protect the surface and improve structural stability of the active material [Park 0066].
Kim is further silent as to a thickness of the coating layer being 0.6 µm-2 µm. However, Lee teaches a composite cathode active material comprising a lithium nickel transition metal oxide core and a single coating layer including cobalt as a main component [0014] as well as aluminum and boron [0053], wherein the thickness of the single coating layer may be in a range of about 250 nm to 1000 nm [0032], which is equivalent to 0.25 µm-1 µm and overlaps with the claimed range. 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Kim and Lee are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cobalt coated lithium nickel transition metal oxide cathode active materials. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thickness of the composite coating portion of Kim with the larger thickness of Lee. Doing so would have ensured the effect of the coating is significant [Lee 0032], including improved stability, charge-discharge efficiency, high-rate characteristics, and lifetime characteristics of the battery [Lee 0145], without reducing the discharge capacity [Lee 0032].
Regarding claims 3-6, modified Kim teaches the positive-electrode active material according to claim 1. Kim further teaches wherein:
with respect to the total weight of the positive-electrode active material matrix, a weight proportion of a coating amount of the element cobalt in the coating layer is 1,000-8,000 ppm [0032] or specifically 5,000 ppm in example 3 [0080], which lies within the 1,000-20,000 ppm as required by claim 4, a coating amount of the element boron in the coating layer is 50-700 ppm [0033] or specifically 200 ppm in example 3 [0080], which lies within the 100-2,000 ppm as required by claim 6, a weight proportion of a coating amount of the element aluminum in the coating layer is 1,000-8,000 ppm [0034], which overlaps with the 100-3,000 ppm as required by claim 5, and a weight proportion of a total coating amount of element cobalt, element aluminum, and element boron in the coating layer are 2,050-16,700 ppm [0032-0034], when adding up all the ranges, or specifically 10,200 ppm in example 3 [0080], which lies within the 1,000-22,000 ppm as required by claim 3. 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 10, modified Kim teaches the positive-electrode active material according to claim 1. Kim further teaches wherein:
the cobalt-containing compound is selected from more than one of cobalt oxide, cobalt salt, cobalt hydroxide, and cobalt oxyhydroxide [0041]; or
the aluminum-containing compound is selected from more than one of aluminum oxide, aluminum hydroxide, aluminum salt, and aluminum halide [0043]; or
the boron-containing compound is selected from more than one of boron oxide, boron halide, boric acid, borate, and organoboron compound [0042].
Regarding claim 19, modified Kim teaches the positive-electrode material according to claim 1. Kim further teaches a secondary battery, comprising the positive-electrode material according to claim 1 [0019].
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Park further in view of Lee, as applied above, further in view of Park et al. (US 20170222221 A1), hereinafter Park ‘221.
Modified Kim teaches the positive-electrode active material according to claim 1. Modified Kim is silent as to the particles in the positive-electrode active material being secondary particles formed by agglomeration of primary particles. However, Park ‘221 teaches a positive-electrode active material similar to Kim [Park ‘221 Formula 1, 0031] wherein the particles in the positive-electrode active material are secondary particles formed by agglomeration of primary particles [0018]. Park ‘221 further teaches an average particle size of the primary particles in the secondary particles being 0.01-5 µm [0098], which overlaps with the claimed 100-1000 nm, and a median particle size by volume D50 of the positive-electrode active material is 0.2-10 µm [0098], which overlaps with the claimed 2-15 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. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Kim and Park ‘221 are both considered to be equivalent to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of lithium complex metal oxide positive-electrode active materials. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the positive-electrode active material of Kim with the active material taught by Park ‘221. Doing so would have produced a secondary battery with excellent discharge capacity, output property, and capacity retention rate [Park ‘221 0184].
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Park further in view of Lee, as applied above, further in view of Du et al. (WO 2020135767 A1, using US 20220077464 A1 as the English translation), hereinafter Du.
Modified Kim teaches the positive-electrode active material according to claim 1. Modified Kim is silent as to the particles in the positive-electrode active material being monocrystalline particles. However, Du teaches a positive-electrode active material similar to Kim [Du 0006] wherein the particles in the positive-electrode active material are single crystal particles [0006]. Du further teaches the positive-electrode active material having a median particle size by volume D50 of 1-6 µm [0052], which lies within the claimed 1-8 µm, and a specific surface area of 0.5-1.5 m2/g [0051], which lies within the claimed 0.4 -2 m2/g.
Kim and Du are both considered to be equivalent to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of lithium complex metal oxide positive-electrode active materials. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the positive-electrode active material of Kim with the active material taught by Du. Doing so would have accelerated a migration rate of lithium ions during the charging and discharging process and prevented the deterioration of the cycle performance and rate performance of the electrochemical energy storage apparatus [0035].
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view Kweon et al. (US 20020071990 A1), hereinafter Kweon.
Kim teaches a positive-electrode active material [0009], comprising:
a positive-electrode active material matrix, in this case a lithium complex transition metal oxide; and
a coating layer, in this case a composite coating portion; wherein:
the coating layer coats a surface of the positive-electrode active material matrix [0019], and
the positive-electrode active material matrix is Li1+a[NixCoyMnzMb]O2, wherein 0<x<1, 0≤y<0.3, 0≤z<0.3, 0<a<0.2, 0<b<0.2, x+y+z+b=1,and M is selected from more than one of Mg, Ca, Sb, Ce, Ti, Zr, Al, Zn, and B, in this case LipNi1-(x1+y1+z1)Cox1May1Mbz1Mcq1O2 [Formula 1], wherein 0.9≤p≤1.5, 0<x1≤0.2, 0<y1≤0.2, 0≤z≤0.1, 0≤q≤0.1, and 0<x1+y1+z1≤0.35, Ma can be Mn, Mb can be Mg, Ce, Ti, Zr, or Al, and Mc can be Mg, Ti, Zr, or Al [0022], and
the coating layer contains a cobalt-containing compound, an aluminum-containing compound, and a boron-containing compound [0010].
Kim is silent as to a weight proportion of a coating amount of element cobalt in the coating layer being 13000 ppm-20000 ppm with respect to a total weight of the positive-electrode active material matrix. However, Kweon teaches a similar positive active material including a lithiated compound core [0049] and a surface treatment layer comprising a coating element that may be a mixture of cobalt, aluminum, and boron and is present at a content of 2*10-5 to 2% by weight based on the weight of the positive active material [0047]. This is equivalent to a content of 0.2 ppm-20000 ppm which overlaps with the claimed range. 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Examiner acknowledges that this content includes the presence of cobalt, aluminum, and boron in the coating material, not just cobalt. However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use a cobalt content that is 13000 ppm or greater and less than 20000 ppm. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Kim and Kweon are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of coated lithium nickel transition metal oxide positive active materials. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cobalt content of Kim to be within the content range of the coating element of Kweon. Doing so would have reduced the internal resistance and prevented discharge potential drop so that the active material exhibits good cycle life characteristics, discharge potential, and power [Kweon 0080], as well as superior thermal stability [Kweon 0087].
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.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in Amendment, filed 23 April 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Examiner agrees that the weight proportion taught by Seo does not overlap with the claimed range. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kim further in view of Kweon.
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 DUSTIN KENWOOD VAN KIRK whose telephone number is (703)756-4717. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm EST.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571)272-3433. 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.
/DUSTIN VAN KIRK/Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/NIKI BAKHTIARI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights