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
1. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/19/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
2. Applicant’s amendments with respect to claims filed on 06/19/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-7 and 9-16 remain pending in this application and are currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. Claim 8 has been cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4. Claims 7 and 9-11 are 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 7, the recitation “0.30≤a≤0.70” in claim 7, line 8 is indefinite because in claim 1 upon which claim 7 depends, the content of nickel is 55 to 70 mol% based on a total number of atoms of all elements except for lithium and oxygen, however in claim 7 the total nickel content is in a broader range than 55 to 70 mol% so it is unclear how the content of nickel given by equation 7 can be less than 55 mol%. For examination purposes the aforementioned recitation will be interpreted as “0.55≤a≤0.70”.
Regarding claims 9-11, the claims are rejected as being dependent upon a claim which is rejected under this statute.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 or 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
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.
6. Claim(s) 1-5, 7, and 9-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Liu et al. (Pub. No. CN 114590847 A).
Regarding claim 1, Liu teaches a cathode active material (ternary cathode material particles, see [0078]) for a lithium secondary battery (secondary battery, see [0079]) comprising: lithium-transition metal composite oxide particles (ternary cathode material particles, see [0078]) wherein the lithium-transition metal composite oxide particles (ternary cathode material particles, see [0078]) include Ni, Co, and Mn (see [0077] where the examples provided include Ni, Co, and Mn), wherein a content of nickel (Ni, see [0077]) in the lithium-transition metal composite oxide particles (ternary cathode material particles, see [0078]) is 55 to 70 mol % (LiNi0.6Co0.1Mn0.30O2, see [0077] gives specific embodiment and example of the ternary cathode material particles) based on a total number of atoms of all elements except for lithium and oxygen (see [0077] where 0.6 is mol % of nickel compared to all elements except lithium and oxygen) but is silent to having a (113) plane FWHM change rate of 75% or less, which is measured through in-situ X-ray diffraction (XRD) and defined by Equation 1 below:
(113)plane FWHM change rate (%)=100×{(FWHM.sub.max(113)−FWHM.sub.min(113))/FWHM.sub.max(113)} Equation 1 wherein FWHM.sub.max (113) is a maximum FWHM value of a peak of (113) plane of the lithium-transition metal composite oxide particle measured through the in-situ XRD, and FWHM.sub.min (113) is a minimum FWHM value of the peak of (113) plane of the lithium-transition metal composite oxide particle measured through in-situ XRD.
However, Liu teaches the same composition (see [0077] the specific embodiment of LiNi0.6Co0.1Mn0.30O2 which adheres to the composition of the instant published specification [0069-0070] and adheres to the composition given by Example 2 in the instant published specification [0130-0131]) and teaches towards a similar purpose of having high structural stability (see [0044]-[0046] of instant published application described prevention of lattice structure deformation caused by charging and discharging, see [0080] of Liu the positive electrode material has high gram capacity, cycle stability, and structural stability) and further as evidenced by of *Ming balancing the content of nickel in lithium nickel cobalt manganese ternary material balances the energy density of the material with the amount of side reactions of the material which cause volume change and cracks and degradation of the material (see [0016] of *Ming).
Therefore if the lithium-transition metal composite oxide particles (ternary cathode material particles, see [0078]) as taught by Liu were measured in the same way as claimed, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the transition metal to exhibit the same FWHM characteristic, thereby implicitly teaching the claim. Alternatively, the claimed invention is found to be obvious because even if the Liu ternary cathode material particles would not exhibit the same FWHM characteristic, if measured, the difference is not a patentable distinction as the structure of the prior art and claimed materials are close enough that no significant difference in function is associated the difference, noting that both materials are taught to have the same or similar advantageous properties as described above (ternary cathode material particles, see [0078]).
*Additional Evidence provided by Ming et al. (Pub. No. CN 113666436 A).
Regarding claim 2, Liu is silent to wherein the (113) plane FWHM change rate is 30 to 70%.
However, if the lithium-transition metal composite oxide particles (ternary cathode material particles, see [0078]) as taught by Liu were measured in the same way as claimed, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the transition metal to exhibit the same FWHM characteristic, thereby implicitly teaching the claim. Alternatively, the claimed invention is found to be obvious because even if the Liu ternary cathode material particles would not exhibit the same FWHM characteristic, if measured, the difference is not a patentable distinction as the structure of the prior art and claimed materials are close enough that no significant difference in function is associated the difference, noting that both materials are taught to have the same or similar advantageous properties as described above (ternary cathode material particles, see [0078], see detailed explanation in rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 3, Liu is silent to wherein a value of the FWHM.sub.max (113) is greater than 0.200 and less than 0.510.
However, if the lithium-transition metal composite oxide particles (ternary cathode material particles, see [0078]) as taught by Liu were measured in the same way as claimed, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the transition metal to exhibit the same FWHM characteristic, thereby implicitly teaching the claim. Alternatively, the claimed invention is found to be obvious because even if the Liu ternary cathode material particles would not exhibit the same FWHM characteristic, if measured, the difference is not a patentable distinction as the structure of the prior art and claimed materials are close enough that no significant difference in function is associated the difference, noting that both materials are taught to have the same or similar advantageous properties as described above (ternary cathode material particles, see [0078], see detailed explanation in rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 4, Liu is silent to wherein a value of the FWHM.sub.min (113) is 0.125 to 0.500.
However, if the lithium-transition metal composite oxide particles (ternary cathode material particles, see [0078]) as taught by Liu were measured in the same way as claimed, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the transition metal to exhibit the same FWHM characteristic, thereby implicitly teaching the claim. Alternatively, the claimed invention is found to be obvious because even if the Liu ternary cathode material particles would not exhibit the same FWHM characteristic, if measured, the difference is not a patentable distinction as the structure of the prior art and claimed materials are close enough that no significant difference in function is associated the difference, noting that both materials are taught to have the same or similar advantageous properties as described above (ternary cathode material particles, see [0078], see detailed explanation in rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 5, Liu is silent to wherein the (113) plane FWHM change rate (%) of the lithium-transition metal composite oxide particle according to the charging and discharging of the lithium secondary battery are measured in real time through the in-situ XRD.
However, if the lithium-transition metal composite oxide particles (ternary cathode material particles, see [0078]) as taught by Liu were measured in the same way as claimed, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the transition metal to exhibit the same FWHM characteristic, thereby implicitly teaching the claim. Alternatively, the claimed invention is found to be obvious because even if the Liu ternary cathode material particles would not exhibit the same FWHM characteristic, if measured, the difference is not a patentable distinction as the structure of the prior art and claimed materials are close enough that no significant difference in function is associated the difference, noting that both materials are taught to have the same or similar advantageous properties as described above (ternary cathode material particles, see [0078], see detailed explanation in rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 7, Liu teaches wherein the lithium-transition metal composite oxide particles (ternary cathode material particles, see [0078]) are represented by Formula 1 (LiNi0.6Co0.1Mn0.30O2, see [0077] gives specific embodiment and example of the ternary cathode material particles) below:
Li.sub.xNi.sub.aCo.sub.bMn.sub.cM.sub.dO.sub.2+y Formula 1 (LiNi0.6Co0.1Mn0.30O2, see [0077] gives specific embodiment and example of the ternary cathode material particles) wherein M includes at least one of Na, Mg, Ca, Y, Ti, Hf, V, Nb, Ta, Cr, Mo, W, Fe, Cu, Ag, Zn, B, Al, Ga, C, Si, Sn, Sr, Ba, Ra, P and Zr (note the total content of M can be equal to 0, therefore it is not present in the formula), and a, b, c, d, x and y are in a range of 0.8<x<1.5 (1, see [0077] LiNi0.6Co0.1Mn0.30O2), 0.30≤a≤0.70 (0.6, see [0077] LiNi0.6Co0.1Mn0.30O2), 0<b<0.20 (0.1, see [0077] LiNi0.6Co0.1Mn0.30O2), 0.02≤c≤0.50 (0.30, see [0077] LiNi0.6Co0.1Mn0.30O2), 0≤d≤0.05 (0, see [0077] LiNi0.6Co0.1Mn0.30O2), 0.98≤a+b+c≤1.02 (1.0, see [0077] LiNi0.6Co0.1Mn0.30O2, 0.6+0.1+0.3 = 1.0), and −0.1≤y≤0.1 (0, see [0077] LiNi0.6Co0.1Mn0.30O2), respectively. See 112 rejection above for interpretation.
Regarding claim 9, Liu teaches wherein in Formula 1 (LiNi0.6Co0.1Mn0.30O2, see [0077] gives specific embodiment and example of the ternary cathode material particles), b is in a range of 0.03≤b≤0.15 (0.1, see [0077] LiNi0.6Co0.1Mn0.30O2).
Regarding claim 10, Liu teaches wherein in Formula 1 (LiNi0.6Co0.1Mn0.30O2, see [0077] gives specific embodiment and example of the ternary cathode material particles), a and b satisfy 3≤a/b≤40 (6, see [0077] LiNi0.6Co0.1Mn0.30O2, 0.6/0.1 = 6).
Regarding claim 11, Liu teaches wherein in Formula 1 (LiNi0.6Co0.1Mn0.30O2, see [0077] gives specific embodiment and example of the ternary cathode material particles), a and b satisfy 4.5≤a/b≤10 (6, see [0077] LiNi0.6Co0.1Mn0.30O2, 0.6/0.1 = 6).
Regarding claim 12, Liu is silent to wherein the lithium-transition metal composite oxide particles have a (101) plane FWHM ratio of 300% or less, which is defined by Equation 3 below:
(101)plane FWHM ratio(8)=100×(FWHM.sub.max(101)/FWHM.sub.min(101)) Equation 3 wherein in Equation 3, FWHM.sub.max (101) is a maximum FWHM value of a peak of (101) plane of the lithium-transition metal composite oxide particle measured through the in-situ XRD, and FWHM.sub.min (101) is a minimum FWHM value of the peak of (101) plane of the lithium-transition metal composite oxide particle measured through in-situ XRD.
However, if the lithium-transition metal composite oxide particles (ternary cathode material particles, see [0078]) as taught by Liu were measured in the same way as claimed, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the transition metal to exhibit the same FWHM characteristic, thereby implicitly teaching the claim. Alternatively, the claimed invention is found to be obvious because even if the Liu ternary cathode material particles would not exhibit the same FWHM characteristic, if measured, the difference is not a patentable distinction as the structure of the prior art and claimed materials are close enough that no significant difference in function is associated difference, noting that both materials are taught to have the same or similar advantageous properties as described above (ternary cathode material particles, see [0078], see detailed explanation in rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 13, Liu is silent to wherein the (101) plane FWHM ratio is 250% or less.
However, if the lithium-transition metal composite oxide particles (ternary cathode material particles, see [0078]) as taught by Liu were measured in the same way as claimed, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the transition metal to exhibit the same FWHM characteristic, thereby implicitly teaching the claim. Alternatively, the claimed invention is found to be obvious because even if the Liu ternary cathode material particles would not exhibit the same FWHM characteristic, if measured, the difference is not a patentable distinction as the structure of the prior art and claimed materials are close enough that no significant difference in function is associated the difference, noting that both materials are taught to have the same or similar advantageous properties as described above (ternary cathode material particles, see [0078], see detailed explanation in rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 14, Liu teaches a lithium secondary battery (secondary battery, see [0079], see [0086] where the battery is a lithium ion battery), comprising: a cathode (positive electrode sheet, see [0079]) comprising a cathode active material layer (active material layer, see [0082]) comprising the cathode active material (ternary cathode material particles, see [0078]) for a lithium secondary battery (secondary battery, see [0079]) according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above); and an anode (lithium as counter electrode, see [0097], see [00139] the battery of example 8 is made the same way with the material of example 8) disposed to face the cathode (positive electrode sheet, see [0079], see [0097] the positive electrode sheet and counter electrode are placed into a battery, therefore at least one face of the counter electrode will face the positive electrode sheet).
Regarding claim 15, Liu teaches a cathode active material (ternary cathode material particles, see [0078]) for a lithium secondary battery (secondary battery, see [0079]) comprising: lithium-transition metal composite oxide particles (ternary cathode material particles, see [0078]) having a composition represented by Formula 1 (LiNi0.6Co0.1Mn0.30O2, see [0077] gives specific embodiment and example of the ternary cathode material particles):
Li.sub.xNi.sub.aCo.sub.bMn.sub.cM.sub.dO.sub.2+y Formula 1 (LiNi0.6Co0.1Mn0.30O2, see [0077] gives specific embodiment and example of the ternary cathode material particles) wherein M includes at least one of Na, Mg, Ca, Y, Ti, Hf, V, Nb, Ta, Cr, Mo, W, Fe, Cu, Ag, Zn, B, Al, Ga, C, Si, Sn, Sr, Ba, Ra, P and Zr (note the total content of M can be equal to 0, therefore it is not present in the formula), and a, b, c, d, x and y are in a range of 0.8<x<1.5 (1, see [0077] LiNi0.6Co0.1Mn0.30O2), 0.30≤a≤0.70 (0.6, see [0077] LiNi0.6Co0.1Mn0.30O2), 0<b<0.20 (0.1, see [0077] LiNi0.6Co0.1Mn0.30O2), 0.02≤c≤0.50 (0.30, see [0077] LiNi0.6Co0.1Mn0.30O2), 0≤d≤0.05 (0, see [0077] LiNi0.6Co0.1Mn0.30O2), 0.98≤a+b+c≤1.02 (1.0, see [0077] LiNi0.6Co0.1Mn0.30O2, 0.6+0.1+0.3 = 1.0), and −0.1≤y≤0.1 (0, see [0077] LiNi0.6Co0.1Mn0.30O2), respectively, but is silent to having a (113) plane FWHM change rate of 75% or less, which is measured through in-situ X-ray diffraction (XRD) and defined by Equation 1 below:
(113)plane FWHM change rate (%)=100×{(FWHM.sub.max(113)−FWHM.sub.min(113))/FWHM.sub.max(113)} Equation 1 wherein FWHM.sub.max (113) is a maximum FWHM value of a peak of (113) plane of the lithium-transition metal composite oxide particle measured through the in-situ XRD, and wherein FWHM.sub.min (113) is a minimum FWHM value of the peak of (113) plane of the lithium-transition metal composite oxide particle measured through in-situ XRD.
However, Liu teaches the same composition (see [0077] the specific embodiment of LiNi0.6Co0.1Mn0.30O2 which adheres to the composition of the instant published specification [0069-0070] and adheres to the composition given by Example 2 in the instant published specification [0130-0131]) and teaches towards a similar purpose of having high structural stability (see [0044]-[0046] of instant published application described prevention of lattice structure deformation caused by charging and discharging, see [0080] of Liu the positive electrode material has high gram capacity, cycle stability, and structural stability) and further as evidenced by of *Ming balancing the content of nickel in lithium nickel cobalt manganese ternary material balances the energy density of the material with the amount of side reactions of the material which cause volume change and cracks and degradation of the material (see [0016] of *Ming).
Therefore if the lithium-transition metal composite oxide particles (ternary cathode material particles, see [0078]) as taught by Liu were measured in the same way as claimed, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the transition metal to exhibit the same FWHM characteristic, thereby implicitly teaching the claim. Alternatively, the claimed invention is found to be obvious because even if the Liu ternary cathode material particles would not exhibit the same FWHM characteristic, if measured, the difference is not a patentable distinction as the structure of the prior art and claimed materials are close enough that no significant difference in function is associated the difference, noting that both materials are taught to have the same or similar advantageous properties as described above (ternary cathode material particles, see [0078]).
*Additional Evidence provided by Ming et al. (Pub. No. CN 113666436 A).
Regarding claim 16, Liu teaches wherein in Formula 1 (LiNi0.6Co0.1Mn0.30O2, see [0077] gives specific embodiment and example of the ternary cathode material particles): b is in a range of 0.03≤b≤0.15 (0.1, see [0077] LiNi0.6Co0.1Mn0.30O2), and a and b satisfy 3≤a/b≤40 (6, see [0077] LiNi0.6Co0.1Mn0.30O2, 0.6/0.1 = 6).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (Pub. No. CN 114590847 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shizuka et al. (Pub. No. US 20110003200 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Liu fails to teach wherein the lithium-transition metal composite oxide particles include at least one doping element.
However, Shizuka teaches the lithium-transition metal composite oxide particles (lithium transition metal, see [0168], see [0090] the powder composition is an oxide) include at least one doping element (foreign elements, see [0172] where the element is present in grain boundaries, see [0410-0411] B and W are introduced in the mixture, but not part of the composition overall therefore are dopants).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Liu to include a foreign element such as B and W as dopants before firing as taught by Shizuka to exhibit excellent powder properties, high load characteristics, high-voltage resistance, and high degree of safety (see [0069] of Shizuka). Further, Liu teaches modifications can be made (see [0082] of Liu).
Response to Arguments
9. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7 and 9-16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely the same combination or interpretation of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS CALEB MARROQUIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0166. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30-5:00 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, Tiffany Legette can be reached at 571-270-7078. 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.
/DOUGLAS C MARROQUIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights