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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed September 25th, 2025 does not place the application in condition for allowance.
The 112(b) rejections of claims 2-6, and 18 are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
The rejections based over Yang are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
New rejections follow.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 14, and 19-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 1, Applicant recites, “the high-nickel cathode material has a chemical formula 1: Li1+aNibMncAdO2, where…0.05<c≤0.20, 0.005<d≤0.06”. Applicant did not disclose in the originally filed specification the further limiting recitations regarding the variable subscripts c, and d. Accordingly, the claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claims 14, and 31-34, Applicant recites, “0.005<d≤0.04”. Applicant did not disclose in the originally filed specification the further limiting recitations regarding the variable subscript d. Accordingly, the claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Appropriate action is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 21, Applicant recites, “when measured by the nitrogen adsorption”. This term lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate action is required.
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.
Claims 1, 14, and 19-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2021/0167381 A1) in view of Hanafusa (US 2024/0282954 A1) in view of Shin et al. (US 2022/0106199 A1).
In view of Claim 1, Choi et al. discloses a high-nickel (Paragraph 0058) cathode material for lithium-ion batteries (Paragraph 0054 & 0061), that has a porous structure (Figure 1, there is space between the primary particles, thus porous & Paragraph 0043), that has the chemical formula Li1+aNibMncAdO2 (Paragraph 0061), M1 represents Mn (Paragraph 0063), and M2 represents Al, W, Ce, Mo, Ba, Ti, Mg, Ta, V, Sr, and B (Paragraph 0064), where a = 0-0.0.24 (w = 0.5 to 1.5, thus when w = 1 to 1.24 it anticipates Applicant’s claimed range), b = 0.895 (when x = 0, y = 0.10 & z = 0.005), c =0.05-0.2 (when y = 0 to 0.2), and d = 0.005 to 0.06 (when z = 0 to 0.2) (Paragraph 0061 & 0065).
In regards to the limitation that, “the cathode material has a half-peak width FWHM of 0.080-0.180 at a (101) diffraction peak in a powder X-ray diffraction pattern”. Choi et al. teaches the same material structure as recited, and therefore it will, inherently, display the recited properties, namely allowing for “the cathode material has a half-peak width FWHM of 0.080-0.180 at a (101) diffraction peak in a powder X-ray diffraction pattern”. See MPEP 2112.01 I.
Choi et al. does not disclose the porous structure has a pore size within a range of 1.7-19 nm.
Hanafusa discloses that a high-nickel cathode material for lithium-ion batteries (Paragraph 0009) with a pore size of 2-200 nm (Paragraph 0052) and a pore volume that is less than 0.01 g/cm3 (Paragraph 0053). Hanafusa teaches that this configuration results in a lithium secondary battery in which the discharge capacity does not easily decrease even after repeated charging and discharging (Paragraph 0007). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the pore size be in the range of 2-200 nm and a pore volume less then 0.01 g/cm3 as disclosed by Hanafusa in Yang’s high-nickel cathode material for the advantage of having a configuration that results in a lithium secondary battery in which the discharge capacity does not easily decrease even after repeated charging and discharging.
Choi et al. does not disclose that the cathode material has a tap density of ≥ 1.9 g/cm3.
Shin et al. discloses that cathode material should have tap densities of 1 g/cm3 to 4 g/cm3 and that if a cathode material shows this tap density, the reaction between electrolyte solution and cathode active material particles may be facilitated due to the cavity formation while the energy density of the particles is not reduced (Paragraph 0068). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have cathode material tap densities of 1 g/cm3 to 4 g/cm3 as disclosed by Shin et al. in Choi et al. cathode active material for the advantages of having the reaction between electrolyte solution and cathode active material particles may be facilitated due to the cavity formation while the energy density of the particles is not reduced.
In view of Claim 14, Choi et al., Hanafusa, and Shin et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Choi et al. discloses that d = 0.005 to 0.06 (when z = 0 to 0.02) (Paragraph 0061 & 0065).
In view of Claim 19, Choi et al., Hanafusa, and Shin et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Choi et al. teaches a current collector has the high nickel cathode material loaded thereon (Paragraph 0091).
In view of Claim 20, Choi et al., Hanafusa, and Shin et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 19. Choi et al. discloses a lithium ion battery comprising the cathode for lithium ion batteries (Paragraph 0090-0091), an anode, and an electrolyte (Paragraph 0102), wherein the electrolyte contains a lithium salt (Paragraph 0115).
In view of Claim 21, Choi et al., Hanafusa, and Shin et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 19. In regards to being unimodal or multimodal, Choi et al. discloses that the particles can be in multimodal (Paragraph 0044), while Hanafusa was relied upon to disclose why it would be obvious to select a pore size of 2-200 nm (Paragraph 0052), and a pore volume that is less than 0.01 g/cm3 (Paragraph 0053).
In regards to the limitations “characterized in that a BJH pore size distribution curve has a unimodal or multimodal pore size distribution…when measured by the nitrogen adsorption”, and “single point adsorption”, the Examiner is treating it as a product by process claim. It has been shown that even 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 (MPEP 2113).
In view of Claim 22, Choi et al., Hanafusa, and Shin et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 21. Hanafusa was relied upon to disclose why it would be obvious to select a pore volume that is less than 0.007 g/cm3 (Paragraph 0053).
In regards to the limitations “characterized in that…single point adsorption”, the Examiner is treating it as a product by process claim. It has been shown that even 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 (MPEP 2113).
In view of Claim 23, Choi et al., Hanafusa, and Shin et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 21. Choi et al. discloses that the cathode material has a particle size of 0.1 to 5 microns (Paragraph 0044 – note that there’s a typo in the US PG Pub, the Korean priority documents disclose it as being micron, not an actual meter).
In view of Claim 24, Choi et al., Hanafusa, and Shin et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Choi et al. does not disclose that the cathode material has a specific surface area of 0.33-1.5 m2/g.
Hanafusa teaches a cathode material with a specific surface area of 0.5-1.2 m2/g (Paragraph 0016). Hanafusa teaches that this configuration results in a lithium secondary battery in which the discharge capacity does not easily decrease even after repeated charging and discharging (Paragraph 0007). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the cathode material with a specific surface area of 0.5-1.2 m2/g as disclosed by Hanafusa in modified Choi et al. high-nickel cathode material for the advantage of having a configuration that results in a lithium secondary battery in which the discharge capacity does not easily decrease even after repeated charging and discharging.
In view of Claim 25, Choi et al., Hanafusa, and Shin et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 21. Choi et al. does not disclose that the cathode material has a specific surface area of 0.33-1.5 m2/g.
Hanafusa teaches a cathode material with a specific surface area of 0.5-1.2 m2/g (Paragraph 0016). Hanafusa teaches that this configuration results in a lithium secondary battery in which the discharge capacity does not easily decrease even after repeated charging and discharging (Paragraph 0007). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the cathode material with a specific surface area of 0.5-1.2 m2/g as disclosed by Hanafusa in modified Choi et al. high-nickel cathode material for the advantage of having a configuration that results in a lithium secondary battery in which the discharge capacity does not easily decrease even after repeated charging and discharging.
In view of Claim 26, Choi et al., Hanafusa, and Shin et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 23. Choi et al. does not disclose that the cathode material has a specific surface area of 0.33-1.5 m2/g.
Hanafusa teaches a cathode material with a specific surface area of 0.5-1.2 m2/g (Paragraph 0016). Hanafusa teaches that this configuration results in a lithium secondary battery in which the discharge capacity does not easily decrease even after repeated charging and discharging (Paragraph 0007). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the cathode material with a specific surface area of 0.5-1.2 m2/g as disclosed by Hanafusa in modified Choi et al. high-nickel cathode material for the advantage of having a configuration that results in a lithium secondary battery in which the discharge capacity does not easily decrease even after repeated charging and discharging.
In view of Claim 27, Choi et al., Hanafusa, and Shin et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. In regards to the limitation, “the cathode material has a total free lithium content of < 1800 ppm”.
Choi et al. teaches the same structure as recited, and therefore it will, inherently, display the recited properties, namely allowing for “a total free lithium content of < 1800 ppm”. See MPEP 2112.01 I.
In view of Claim 28, Choi et al., Hanafusa, and Shin et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 21. In regards to the limitation, “the cathode material has a total free lithium content of < 1800 ppm”.
Choi et al. teaches the same structure as recited, and therefore it will, inherently, display the recited properties, namely allowing for “a total free lithium content of < 1800 ppm”. See MPEP 2112.01 I.
In view of Claim 29, Choi et al., Hanafusa, and Shin et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 23. In regards to the limitation, “the cathode material has a total free lithium content of < 1800 ppm”.
Choi et al. teaches the same structure as recited, and therefore it will, inherently, display the recited properties, namely allowing for “a total free lithium content of < 1800 ppm”. See MPEP 2112.01 I.
In view of Claim 30, Choi et al., Hanafusa, and Shin et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 24. In regards to the limitation, “the cathode material has a total free lithium content of < 1800 ppm”.
Choi et al. teaches the same structure as recited, and therefore it will, inherently, display the recited properties, namely allowing for “a total free lithium content of < 1800 ppm”. See MPEP 2112.01 I.
In view of Claim 31, Choi et al., Hanafusa, and Shin et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 21. Choi et al. discloses that d = 0.005 to 0.06 (when z = 0 to 0.02) (Paragraph 0061 & 0065).
In view of Claim 32, Choi et al., Hanafusa, and Shin et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 23. Choi et al. discloses that d = 0.005 to 0.06 (when z = 0 to 0.02) (Paragraph 0061 & 0065).
In view of Claim 33, Choi et al., Hanafusa, and Shin et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 24. Choi et al. discloses that d = 0.005 to 0.06 (when z = 0 to 0.02) (Paragraph 0061 & 0065).
In view of Claim 34, Choi et al., Hanafusa, and Shin et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 27. Choi et al. discloses that d = 0.005 to 0.06 (when z = 0 to 0.02) (Paragraph 0061 & 0065).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new grounds for rejection being used in the current 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 DANIEL P MALLEY JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-1638. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm 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, Jeffrey T Barton can be reached at 571-272-1307. 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.
/DANIEL P MALLEY JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726