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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Group 1, claims 1-12, in the reply filed on January 7, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-17 are withdrawn from further consideration by Applicant pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on January 7, 2026.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: [0024] on Page 4 recites “the cathode may have a volume resistance of 1 Ohm or less. This disclosure is not clear as the recited unit, Ohm, is not a unit for volume resistance, but rather for resistance. This informality is repeated throughout the specification. Examiner recommends clarifying the unit of volume resistance throughout specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 objected to because of the following informalities: Line 6 recites the limitation “in Chemical Formula 1”. It is unclear whether this refers to the formula recited in Claim 7, Lines 3-5 or some other Formula 1. Examiner recommends replacing “in Chemical Formula 1” with “in the Chemical Formula 1”. Appropriate correction 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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 8, and 10-12 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.
Claim 1 is indefinite as it recites the limitation "a portion of a surface area of the core portion" in Line 3. There is inherent antecedent basis (i.e. the known surface of a core) for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether “a surface” refers to the entire surface of the core portion in the cathode active material or any part of said surface. For the purpose of examination, “a portion of a surface of the core portion” has been interpreted to mean “the surface of the core portion”. “The surface” would be considered to have antecedent basis.
Claim 3 is indefinite as it recites the limitation "a content of the reduced carbon nanotube oxide" in Line 2. There is ambiguous antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether “a content” refers to the entire content of the reduced carbon nanotube oxide in the cathode active material or any part of said content. For the purpose of examination, “a content of the reduced carbon nanotube oxide” has been interpreted to mean “the entire content of the reduced carbon nanotube oxide in the cathode active material”.
Claims 5 and 6 are indefinite as they recite the limitation "a total surface area of the core portion" in Lines 2-3 of each claim, respectively. There is ambiguous antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether “a total surface” refers to the entire surface area of the core portion in the cathode active material or any part of said surface area. For the purpose of examination, “a total surface area of the core portion” has been interpreted to mean “the total surface area of the core portion”.
Claim 8 is indefinite as it recites the limitation "the shell has a thickness" in Line 2. There is ambiguous antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether “a thickness” refers to the thickness of the shell portion in the cathode active material or any part of said thickness. Examiner recommends replacing the phrase with “the thickness”.
Claim 10 is indefinite as it recites the limitation “the cathode active material layer does not contain a conductive material” in Line 5 which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how the cathode active material does not contain a conductive material while simultaneously contains a lithium metal oxide core and a reduced carbon nanotube oxide shell, both of which are conductive materials. For the purpose of examination “a conductive material” is interpreted to mean “a conductive additive.”
Claims 11 and 12 are indefinite as they recite the limitation “volume resistance of 1 Ω or less” in Line 2 of each claim, respectively. It is unclear what property is being recited as the claim recites “volume resistance”, but the recited unit, “Ohm”, is not a unit for volume resistance, but rather for resistance. Examiner recommends clarifying the unit of volume resistance. For the purpose of examination “Ohm” has been interpreted to mean “Ohm meter”, a unit of volume resistance.
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.
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 1, 3-7, and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheem (US 2008/0038635 A1) in view of Park (KR 20190114113 A, see machine translation for citation purposes).
Regarding Claim 1, Sheem discloses a cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery (see [0034]/L1-3 and [0080], L4-5) comprising: a core portion containing a lithium metal oxide (see [0039] as examples of lithium metal oxides and [0079]/L4 as an example of a lithium metal oxide as a core portion) and a shell portion covering at least a portion of a surface of the core portion (see [0027]/L3-7 and [0079]/L5-6) containing a oxidized carbon nanotube (see [0079]/L5-6).
Sheem fails to disclose that the oxidized carbon nanotube the shell portion contains is a reduced carbon nanotube oxide.
Park teaches a reduced nanotube oxide for an energy storage device (see Park [0017]/L1-3 for the reduced carbon nanotube oxide and [0002]/L1-2 for application in a lithium secondary battery and [0002]/L7-9 for application in an active material) for the purpose of increased capacitance, output performance, ion absorption/desorption, electrical conductivity, electrical attraction, and large specific surface area (see Park [0015], [0007/L7-10 and [0008]). Park additionally teaches that reduced carbon nanotube oxides, in comparison to oxidized carbon nanotubes has an increased discharge capacity and high capacity maintenance rate (see Table 1, Example 2 for reduced carbon nanotube oxide and Comparative Example 4 for a conventional oxidized carbon nanotube).
Sheem and Park are analogous to the claimed invention as they are both in the field of improving energy storage, discharge, and recharge of lithium secondary batteries. It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to substitute oxidized nanotubes in the shell portion of the active material of Sheem, with the reduced carbon nanotube oxide, as taught by Park for the purpose of increased discharge capacity and high capacity maintenance rate.
Regarding Claim 3, modified Sheem discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Sheem further discloses a content of the reduced carbon nanotube oxide is in a range from 0.01 parts by weight to 1 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the lithium metal oxide (see Sheem [0083]/L4-7 for an example of the carbon nanotube as 0.5 parts by weight of the lithium metal oxide).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Sheem discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Further, modified Sheem discloses the reduced carbon nanotube oxide including a functional group containing oxygen and hydrogen bonded to a carbon nanotube (Park discloses oxidizing carbon nanotubes through acid treatment (see Park, [0022]/L1-2) and then reducing them through heat treatment (see Park, [0020]/L1-4), wherein acid treatment results in the addition to the carbon nanotube of hydroxyl or carboxyl groups (i.e. a functional group containing an oxygen and a hydrogen; see modified Figure 1 from Park below showing an arrow pointing to a carboxyl or hydroxyl group bonded to a carbon nanotube and [0004]/1-4 for specific reference to the addition to hydroxyl or carboxyl groups).
Modified Figure 1.
[AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
181
496
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Further, it is noted that while the heat treatment to reduce the oxidized carbon nanotubes also removes said carboxyl and hydroxyl groups, said reaction would not be a 100% efficient, as no chemical reaction is and thus, to one of ordinary skill in the art, it would be understood that the reduced carbon nanotube oxides taught by Park would still include at least some functional groups containing oxygen and hydrogen bonded to a carbon nanotube.
Regarding Claims 5 and 6, modified Sheem discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Sheem further discloses that the shell portion covers 70% or more of the total surface area of the core portion and that the shell portion covers 90% or more of the total surface area of the core portion (see Sheem [0027]/L5-7, where “may be attached to…the entire surface of the active material thus covering 100% of the active material core).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Sheem discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Sheem does not disclose that the lithium metal oxide has a chemical structure represented by Chemical Formula 1:
[Chemical Formula 1] LixNiaMbO2
wherein, in Chemical Formula 1, M includes at least one element selected from the group consisting of Co, Mn, Ti, Zr, Al, Mg, Ta, W and Cr, 0.8<x<1.5, 0.7≤a≤0.96, and 0.98 ≤a+b≤1.02.
By subtracting 0.7 from 1.02 and 0.96 from 0.98, it was determined that the b value could be expressed as 0.02≤b≤0.32.
Sheem teaches ([0039]) Formula 4 which is LiaNibBcMdO2 where 0.95≤a≤1.1, 0≤b≤0.9, 0≤c≤0.5, and 0.001≤d≤0.1, where B can be Co or Mn ([0041]) and M can be Al, Cr Mn, Fe, Mg, La, Ce, Sr and/or V ([0045]).
By adding 0.001 to 0 and 0.5 to 0.1, it was determined that the c+d (analogous to the Instant Application’s b value) could be expressed as 0.001≤c+d≤0.6
Comparing ranges, in Claim 7 Li has a range of 0.8<x<1.5 and Sheem teaches Li having a range of 0.95≤a≤1.1.
In claim 7 Ni has a range of 0.7≤a≤0.96 and Sheem teaches Ni having a range of 0≤b≤0.9.
within claim 7 M has a range of 0.02≤b≤0.32 and Sheem teaches B+M having a range of 0.001≤c+d≤0.6
Note that when the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05.I). As the ranges disclosed in the prior art significantly overlap the relevant claimed ranges, it is submitted that prior to the effective filing date, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found the lithium metal oxide of Sheem and that of the Instant claim 7 to be obvious variants of one another.
Regarding Claim 9, modified Sheem discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Sheem further discloses a lithium secondary battery (see Sheem [0073]/L2) comprising a cathode (see “positive electrode”, 4, in Fig. 1 of Shem and [0067]) comprising the cathode active material for a secondary battery (see Sheem [0034]/L1-3 and [0066]), and an anode facing the cathode (see “negative electrode”, 2, in Fig. 1 of Sheem ; note that since the negative and positive electrodes of Sheem are wound, one face of the anode is facing the cathode),
Regarding Claim 10, modified Sheem discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Sheem further discloses the cathode comprises a cathode current collector and a cathode active material layer formed on the cathode current collector and the cathode active material layer comprising the cathode active material for a secondary battery (see Sheem [0034]/L1-3) and [0066]) and the cathode active material layer does not contain a conductive additive (as Sheem does not disclose additional conductive material beyond the lithium metal oxide core and nanotube shell, it is interpreted that there is no additional conductive material active present in Sheem).
Regarding Claims 11 and 12, modified Sheem discloses all the limitations as set forth above.
Sheem does not explicitly disclose that the cathode has a volume resistance of 1 Ω⋅m or less or that the cathode has a volume resistance of 0.5 Ω⋅m or more, and less than 0.9 Ω⋅m.
However, it is submitted that such limitations are simply measurements of, and thus descriptions of, inherent properties of the Instant cathode.
Instant specification discloses ([0110]) that the cathode active material is mixed with carbon nanotube oxide in N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone, and ([0114]) afterwards mixed with PVDF in a ratio of 98:2, then coated on an aluminum current collector and pressed to prepare a cathode.
Sheem discloses ([0077]) that the cathode active material was mixed with carbon nanotubes, then (0080]/L1-2) mixed once again in N-methylpyrrolidone (also known as N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone), and ([0080]/L2-5) afterwards mixed with PVDF in a ratio of 97:3, then coated on an aluminum current collector and pressed to prepare a cathode ([0080/L7-9]).
MPEP 2112.01.I states that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.
It is submitted that the cathode of Sheem is produced in a substantially identical process to the cathode of the Instant Application, as set forth above, such that it would inherently possess the same properties, exhibit the same results, and thus anticipate the claimed limitation i.e. the cathode has a volume resistance of 1 Ω⋅m or less or the cathode has a volume resistance of 0.5 Ω⋅m or more, and less than 0.9 Ω⋅m.
Assuming, arguendo, that the property recited in the claimed limitation is not anticipated, as there is no evidence on the record that any differences between the instantly claimed cathode and that of Sheem are critical, and as the conditions of the prior art significantly overlap the relevant conditions disclosed in the Instant Specification, it is submitted that prior to the effective filing date, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found the cathode of Sheem and that of the Instant claim 11 and 12 to be obvious variants of one another.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheem (US 2008/0038635 A1) in view of Park (KR 20190114113 A, see machine translation for citation purposes) as applied to claims 1, 3-7, and 9-12 above, and further in view of She (CN 111403738A, see machine translation for citation purposes).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Sheem discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Sheem fails to disclose the core portion comprises a nitrogen component doped at a surface of the lithium metal oxide.
She teaches the core portion (see She, Page 9, Example 3, 2nd paragraph which discloses a particle in L10) comprises a nitrogen component doped at a surface of the lithium metal oxide (see She, Page 9, Example 3, 2nd paragraph L3-4) for a cathode active material (see She, Page 3, 1st paragraph, where a non-metal element is involved in the doping, one of which is nitrogen and Page 9, Example 3, 2nd paragraph L8-9) with a shell of non-metal conductive polymers (see She, Page 3, 2nd paragraph, in which one of the conductive polymers mentioned is carbon nanotubes) as doing so reduces the Li/Ni mixing rate, reduces the phase change of the material during the cycle, improves the thermal stability of the material, and at the same time further improves the cycle performance of the material (see She, Page 5, 1st paragraph, L7-12).
She is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of cathode active materials for lithium secondary batteries. It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to add nitrogen component doping to the surface of the lithium metal oxide of Sheem, as taught by She, for the purpose of reducing the Li/Ni mixing rate, reducing the phase change of the material during the cycle, improving the thermal stability of the material, and at the same time further improving the cycle performance of the material.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheem (US 2008/0038635 A1) in view of Park (KR 20190114113 A, see machine translation for citation purposes) as applied to claims 1, 3-7, and 9-12 above, and further in view of Park (US 2015/0037680 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Sheem discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Sheem fails to disclose that the shell portion has a thickness ranging from 0.1 µm to 2 µm.
Park teaches a cathode active material (see [0035]) for a lithium secondary battery (see [0031]), comprising a core portion containing a lithium metal oxide (see [0041) and a shell portion containing nanotubes (see [0035]).
Park further teaches (see [0044] for range and [0104] for specific example of a nanotube shell on a lithium metal oxide core of thickness 500 nm or 0.5 µm) that the thickness of the shell is preferably 1 nm to 10 µm, as a nanotube of this length on a positive active material would be beneficial because a nanotube shell of this length minimizes the difference in resistance between the interface of the shell and the interface of the composite oxide core (see [0039]). Note that when the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05.I).
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have thus found it obvious to select the overlapping portions of the ranges for the thickness of the shell with a reasonable expectation that such selection would successfully result in a shell that minimizes the difference in resistance between the interface of the shell and the interface of the composite oxide core.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to whose telephone number is (571) 272-2134. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/B.M.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/CHRISTOPHER P DOMONE/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
April 1, 2026
Prosecution Insights