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 .
Summary
The Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments received December 29, 2025 have been entered into the file. Currently, claims 1 and 3-4 are amended; and claims 2 and 8 are cancelled; resulting in claims 1, 3-7, and 9-11 pending for examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “wherein, the lithium composite oxide comprises pores” in line 12 is objected to as it leaves the interpretation open to the either the individual lithium composite oxide particles comprising pores or the lithium composite oxide electrode as a whole comprising pores. Based on the limitation regarding the average particle diameter of the lithium composite oxide in line 16 of the claim and the Applicant’s remarks filed December 29, 2025, the limitation seems to intend to refer to the individual lithium composite oxide particles. For the purpose of examination, the claim is interpreted as the lithium composite oxide particles comprising pores, and it is recommended to amend the language to clarify the limitation.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 6, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yu-Mi, et al. (JP 2012004109 A).
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Yu-Mi teaches a positive electrode active material with porous particles represented by the chemical formula LiaNixCoyMnzMkO2, wherein M is Al, Mg, Ti, Zr, or a combination thereof; 0.95≤a≤1.2; 0.45≤x≤0.65; 0.15≤y≤0.25; 0.15<z≤0.35; 0≤k≤0.1; and x+y+z+k=1 (lithium composite oxide capable of lithium intercalation/deintercalation) (¶ [0029]-[0030]). Specifically, the first example prepared includes a lithium metal oxide represented by LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 (lithium composite oxide represented by Formula 1 wherein M1 is Mn, w=1, x=0.2, y=0.2, z=0, α=0) (¶ [0076], Ln. 10-12). Yu-Mi teaches that the positive electrode active material of the first example has an average pore diameter of 20-46 nm (¶ [0087], Ln. 5-6). Figure 6 shows the particle size analysis for the positive electrode active material of the first example (¶ [0095], Ln. 1-2). While the average particle diameter (D50) of the positive electrode active material is not disclosed, the particle size distribution shown in Figure 6 indicates that the average particle diameter is within 4-12 µm (d). Using this range, the value of the average pore diameter (major axis length b) ranges from 0.002d to 0.01d, within the claimed range of less than 0.15d.
While it is acknowledged that an average value of the ratio of the major axis length (b) of the pores to the minor axis length (a) of the pores of 1-3 and a proportion of pores in which the ratio (b/a) exceeds 3 is less than 50% are not expressly recited by Yu-Mi, the properties would be inherent to the material taught by the reference. A positive electrode active material with pores having a ratio of b/a of 1-3 and a proportion of pores in which the ratio (b/a) exceeds 3 of less than 50% would be implicitly achieved by a positive electrode active material having substantially the same properties and formed by the same process. The instant specification has not provided adequate teachings that the claimed properties are only obtainable with the claimed material.
As evidence that the claimed properties are inherent to the positive electrode active material taught by Yu-Mi, the reference teaches a positive electrode active material with substantially the same composition formed by substantially the same process. Page 4 of the instant specification discloses that the pore area and pore shape of the lithium composite oxide can be controlled by adjusting the proportions of ammonia and caustic soda used in the co-precipitation for synthesizing a precursor of the lithium composite oxide. The precursor of the first example disclosed in the instant specification is represented by the formula Ni0.91Co0.08Mn0.01(OH)2 and formed by combining nickel sulfate, cobalt sulfate, and manganese sulfate in a solution containing NaOH and NH4OH with a pH maintained at 11.5. Additionally, page 11 of the instant specification discloses that the occupancy rate of the pores is 0.3-3.5%.
With respect to the composition and process, Yu-Mi teaches that the precursor of the first example is formed by combining nickel sulfate, cobalt sulfate, and manganese sulfate with an aqueous solution of NaOH and NH4OH with a pH maintained at 11 (¶ [0076], Ln. 1-6). With respect to the porosity, Yu-Mi teaches that the porosity of the positive electrode active material of the first example is 2.53% (¶ [0087], Ln. 5-6). Therefore, Yu-Mi teaches a positive electrode active material with substantially the same composition and formed by substantially the same process, and thus would achieve the claimed limitations of a ratio of the major axis length (b) of the pores to the minor axis length (a) of the pores of 1-3 and a proportion of pores in which the ratio (b/a) exceeds 3 of less than 50%.
Regarding claim 6, Yu-Mi teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches that the porosity (occupancy rate of the pores) of the positive electrode active material may be 1-5% (¶ [0027], Ln. 1), specifically teaching that the porosity of the positive electrode active material in the first example is 2.53%, within the claimed range of 0.3-3.5% (¶ [0087], Ln. 5-6).
Regarding claims 10-11, Yu-Mi teaches a lithium secondary battery including a positive electrode including the positive electrode active material meeting the limitations of claim 1 above (¶ [0019], Ln. 1-3).
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.
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.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu-Mi, et al. (JP 2012004109 A), as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 4, Yu-Mi teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches that the porosity of the positive electrode active material may be 1-5% (¶ [0027], Ln. 1), specifically teaching that the porosity of the positive electrode active material in the first example is 2.53% (¶ [0087], Ln. 5-6). Yu-Mi does not expressly teach that the average area of pores observed from a cross-sectional SEM image of the nickel-based active material is 0.02 to 1.0 µm2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the average area of pores observed from a cross-sectional SEM image of the nickel-based active material to be within 0.02 to 1.0 µm2, based on the teachings of Yu-Mi that the overall porosity of the positive electrode active material is very low. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that, if the overall porosity of the positive electrode active material is very low, such as 1-5%, the average area of pores observed in a cross-sectional SEM image would also be low. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, based on the teaching of Yu-Mi, to keep the porosity low and therefore keep the average area of pores low. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to keep the average area of pores low in order to increase the particle strength of the positive electrode active material.
Regarding claim 5, Yu-Mi teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches that the particle size analysis of the positive electrode active material of the first example is shown in Figure 6 (¶ [0095], Ln. 1-2). While the average particle diameter (D50) of the positive electrode active material is not disclosed, the particle size distribution shown in Figure 6 indicates that the average particle diameter is within 4-12 µm, overlapping the claimed range of 5-20 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 (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu-Mi, et al. (JP 2012004109 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Woo, et al. (KR 20180094567 A), cited on IDS.
Regarding claim 7, Yu-Mi teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Yu-Mi does not expressly teach the BET specific surface area of the positive electrode active material and therefore does not expressly teach that the BET specific surface area is 0.2-2.0 m2/g.
Woo teaches a positive electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery including a lithium composite oxide core and a surface portion located on the core portion (¶ [0022], Ln. 1-3). Woo teaches that the lithium composite oxide core may include nickel, cobalt, and manganese (¶ [0042], Ln. 1). Additionally, Woo teaches that the BET specific surface area of the positive electrode active material is 0.1-1.2 m2/g (¶ [0047], Ln. 1-2), specifically teaching positive electrode active materials in Examples 1-6 having BET specific surface areas ranging from 0.3-1.2 m2/g (Table 1). Woo teaches that the BET specific surface area is directly related to the area where lithium ions are oxidized and reduced through the electrolyte, and therefore as BET increases, the reaction area with the electrolyte increases (¶ [0076], Ln. 1-3, 8-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the BET specific surface area of the positive electrode active material of Yu-Mi to be low based on the teachings of Woo. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to target a specific surface area between 0.3 and 1.2 m2/g based on the examples provided by Woo, such that the area where lithium ions are oxidized and reduced through the electrolyte is low. One of ordinary skill in the art would want to keep this area low in order to suppress side reactions between the positive electrode active material and the electrolyte.
Regarding claim 9, Yu-Mi teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Yu-Mi does not expressly teach that the positive electrode active material further includes an alloy oxide on at least a part of the surface of the positive electrode active material represented by claimed Formula 2.
Woo teaches a positive electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery including a lithium composite oxide core and a surface portion located on the core portion (¶ [0022], Ln. 1-3). Woo teaches that the lithium composite oxide core may include nickel, cobalt, and manganese (¶ [0042], Ln. 1) and that the surface portion comprises aluminum and boron (¶ [0056], Ln. 1-4). Woo teaches that the surface treatment helps to suppress side reactions between the positive electrode active material and the electrolyte (¶ [0076], Ln. 8-9). Specifically, Woo teaches that aluminum combines with surrounding oxygen to form an oxide insulator (¶ [0078], Ln. 1-4) and boron reacts with lithium to form an oxide which lowers the electronic conductivity of the surrounding area and suppresses reaction with the electrolyte (¶ [0079], Ln. 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the positive electrode active material of Yu-Mi to include a surface portion comprising aluminum and boron based on the teachings of Woo. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to include a surface portion on the particles in order to insulate the particles and suppress reaction with the electrolyte. Specifically, one would be motivated to include a surface portion containing aluminum and boron based on the teachings of Woo that aluminum combines with oxygen and boron combines with lithium to form an insulator and protect the particle from side reactions with the electrolyte. In modifying the positive electrode active material to include the surface portion, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the surface portion would include an oxide represented by claimed Formula 2, wherein M3 is selected from Al and B.
Response to Arguments
Response-Specification
The previous objection to the specification as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter is withdrawn in light of the Applicant’s cancellation of claim 8 in the response filed December 29, 2025.
Response-Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 112
The previous rejections of claims 1 and 8 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 are overcome by the Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 and cancellation of claim 8 in the response filed December 29, 2025.
Response-Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103
In light of the Applicant’s amendment to claim 1, the previous rejections of claims 1 and 9-11 under 35 U.S.C. 102 over Yura (US 2021/0202929 A1), claims 1-7 and 9-11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Kim, et al. (EP 3 272 710 A1) in view of Yura, and claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Kim in view of Yura and further in view of Hayashi (JP 2019140093 A) are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2 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.
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 SARAH J JACOBSON whose telephone number is (703)756-1647. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291.
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.
/SARAH J JACOBSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1785
/MARK RUTHKOSKY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1785