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/Restriction
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I (claims 1-9 and 20) in the reply filed on June 9th, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the inventive groups share a related field of technology and that multiple applications would impose an undue financial and administrative expense upon the Applicant. This is not found persuasive because the analysis used to determine whether the Office may require restriction in national applications submitted under 35 U.S.C. §111(a) is governed by U.S. restriction practice. Administrative and/or financial burden on the Applicant is not a valid criterion in determining whether inventions are patentably distinct (see MPEP §800). Furthermore, the product and method claims are directed to patentably distinct inventions under U.S. restriction practice.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 10-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected method of preparing a positive active material, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on June 9th, 2026.
Claim Status
Claims 10-19 are withdrawn.
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.
Claims 1-9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US20190173076A1) and further in view of Celasun (US20210119204A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a positive active material for a rechargeable lithium battery (claim 1), the positive active material comprising:
a first positive active material comprising a lithium nickel-based composite oxide (claim 1; both the first and second positive active materials comprise a nickel-based positive active material) and
comprising secondary particles in which a plurality of primary particles are aggregated (claim 1; the first positive active material comprises a secondary particle comprising at least two agglomerated primary particles)
a second positive active material comprising a lithium nickel-based composite oxide (claim 1; both the first and second positive active materials comprise a nickel-based positive active material) and
comprising single particles (the second positive active material has a monolith structure and comprises a second nickel-based oxide in particle form, [0008] and [0044]).
Regarding the “cobalt coating portion” limitation for both the first and second positive active materials of the claim, Kim teaches the first and second positive active materials are represented by Chemical Formula 1 (claims 8-9):
Lia(Ni1-x-y-zCoxMnyMz)O2
wherein Mz is an element selected from boron (B), magnesium (Mg), calcium (Ca), strontium (Sr), barium (Ba), titanium (Ti), vanadium (V), chromium (Cr), iron (Fe), copper (Cu), zirconium (Zr), and aluminum (Al), and 0.95 ≤ a ≤ 1.3, x ≤ (1-x-y-z), y ≤ (1-x-y-z), 0 < x < 1, 0 ≤ y < 1, and 0 ≤ z < 1. Kim further teaches that the secondary particles have a monolith structure and may be further adhered or attached to an external part (external part 14, [0038]) of the secondary particles, and further teaches that particles with a monolith structure may be agglomerated (physically and/or chemically bound) to the secondary particle, or may not be physically and/or chemically bound to the secondary particle but may fill pores in the secondary particle and/or contact walls of the pores ([0061]).
However, Kim does not expressly teach a cobalt coating that is a discrete outer layer or coating portion on the surface of the secondary particles of the first positive active material and on the surfaces of the single particles of the second positive active material.
Celasun discloses a positive electrode active material for a lithium-ion battery, comprising a lithium transition metal-based oxide powder that comprises single crystal monolithic particles and has a center and a surface comprising Ni and Co, wherein the particles have a cobalt concentration gradient wherein the particle surface has a higher Co content than the particle center (claim 18) and wherein the cobalt concentration gradient varies continuously from the surface to the center of the particles ([0012]). Celasun further discloses that surface modifications such as a coating on the surface of positive electrode materials is a known strategy to suppress side reactions between the electrode materials and the electrolytes that can lead to poor electrochemical performance during the cycling ([0047]), and that providing Co-based coatings or Co-based concentration gradient coatings for the shell or the entire particle improves the electrochemical properties of positive electrode materials, such as prolonged lifespan and improved thermal stability ([0048]).
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 first positive active material of Kim by applying the cobalt-based surface coating/concentration gradients on the surfaces of the secondary particles as taught by Celasun, and to modify the second positive active material of Kim by applying the cobalt-based surface coating and concentration gradients on the surface of the single particles as taught by Celasun, because Celasun teaches that Co-based coatings or Co-based concentration gradient coatings for the shell or the entire particle may improve the electrochemical properties of positive electrode materials ([0048]).
Kim as modified by Celasun above discloses the claimed invention except for that the single particle surface of the second positive active material comprises a high-concentration coating region having a cobalt content of greater than or equal to about 30 at% and a low- concentration coating region having a cobalt content of less than or equal to about 25 at% based on the total amount of nickel and cobalt on the single particle surface, and a difference between the cobalt content in the high-concentration coating region and the cobalt content in the low-concentration coating region is about 20 at% to about 50 at%, as recited by the claim.
Celasun further notes that optimizing the heat treatment temperature controls the degree of the cobalt gradient ([0051]). Thus, it should be noted that the cobalt concentration and gradient degree are result effective variables, because Celasun identifies heat treatment and surface-to-center ratios as criteria for defining the gradient structure ([0051]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to establish specific concentration ranges, such as high-concentration (≥30 at%) and low-concentration (≤25 at%) regions yielding a content difference of 20 at% to 50 at%, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the cobalt concentration and gradient degree because Celasun discloses that the particles have a cobalt concentration gradient varying continuously from the surface to the center, and that the selection of temperature during heat treatment is a routine, key parameter used to control and determine the degree of the cobalt gradient in a given particle. Thus, arriving at specific Co concentration values or differences across the surface regions of the particles falls within the level of ordinary skill in the art, as optimization of Co concentration gradients and coating distribution via routine heat-treatment temperature adjustment constitutes the optimization of a result-effective variable already recognized in the art to fine-tune electrochemical properties.
Regarding claim 2, modified Kim teaches all feature of claim 1, including a second positive active material comprising a lithium nickel-based composite oxide and comprising single particles, where the second positive active material is represented by Chemical Formula 1 (claims 8-9):
Lia(Ni1-x-y-zCoxMnyMz)O2
where 0.95 ≤ a ≤ 1.3, x ≤ (1-x-y-z), y ≤ (1-x-y-z), 0 < x < 1, 0 ≤ y < 1, and 0 ≤ z < 1. Thus, Kim discloses a cobalt content (Cox) of 0 < x < 1, which overlaps with the claimed range of 0 at% to about 15 at% of the average cobalt content inside each of the single particles of the second positive active material based on the total amount of nickel and cobalt in the lithium nickel-based composite. The atomic percentage (at%) recited in the instant claim is recognized as structurally and functionally equivalent to the mole percentage (mol%) disclosed in the prior art reference, as the relative molar ratio of transition metal atoms in the nickel-based composite directly corresponds to their atomic ratio.
Accordingly, a prima facie case of obviousness is established when the claimed ranges of components overlap with ranges disclosed in the prior art (see MPEP § 2144.05). Furthermore, selecting an optimized cobalt content inside the single particles of a known positive active material composite is a matter of routine optimization for one of ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize or select an average cobalt content inside the single particles of the second positive active material within the overlapping ranges, by routine experimentation, with the expectation of obtaining predictable electrochemical performance properties.
Regarding claim 3, modified Kim teaches all feature of claim 1, including a second positive active material comprising a lithium nickel-based composite oxide and comprising single particles and a cobalt coating portion the surface of each of the single particles, as described above.
Kim does not expressly teach a second positive active material wherein an average cobalt content on the surfaces of the single particles of the second positive active material is about 20 at% to about 60 at% based on the total amount of nickel and cobalt in the lithium nickel-based composite.
Celasun discloses a positive electrode active material for a lithium-ion battery, comprising a lithium transition metal-based oxide powder that comprises single crystal monolithic particles and has a center and a surface comprising Ni and Co. Celasun further discloses the particles having a cobalt concentration gradient wherein the particle surface has a higher Co content than the particle center (claim 18) and wherein the cobalt concentration gradient varies continuously from the surface to the center of the particles ([0012]). Celasun further teaches performing a heat treatment to allow cobalt to react with lithium and diffuse from the surface toward the core, resulting in a surface layer enriched with cobalt, where the heat-treatment temperature is selected to determine the degree of the cobalt gradient ([0051]), and also teaches the normalized Co/Mn molar ratio value can be used to determine the degree of Co gradient ([0120] lines 19-20).
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 second active material particles of Kim by applying the cobalt-gradient surface treatment and diffusion heat-treatment methods taught by Celasun in order to optimize surface structural stability, suppress side reactions ([0047]), and enhance the electrochemical performance of the positive active material ([0048]).
Further, regarding the limitation that the average cobalt content on the surfaces of the single particles is about 20 at% to about 60 at% based on the total amount of nickel and cobalt, Celasun discloses that cobalt concentration increases via coating and diffusion, and Table 4 demonstrates how the Co content of CEX1.1 (a monolithic NMC powder) is increased after the inclusion of a cobalt coating (EX1.1 is the coated product) (pg. 8, Table 4 with CEX1.1 and EX1.1, [0112]). Celasun further discloses specific working examples with cobalt atomic proportions in the composite formulas, such as EX1.2 and 1.3 having compositions such as Li1+a(Ni0.613Mn0.172Co0.216)1-aO2 and Li1+a(Ni0.568Mn0.159Co0.273)1-aO2 where Li/M is 1.01.
Kim as modified by Celasun discloses the claimed invention except for that the average cobalt content on the surfaces of the single particles is about 20 at% to about 60 at% based on the total amount of nickel and cobalt. It should be noted that the cobalt concentration and gradient degree are result effective variables, because Celasun identifies heat treatment and surface-to-center ratios as criteria for defining the gradient structure ([0051]) and discloses working examples with increased cobalt content after the coating process. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to create the single particles of the second positive active material having an average cobalt content on the surfaces of the single particles is about 20 at% to about 60 at% based on the total amount of nickel and cobalt, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the cobalt concentration and gradient degree because Celasun discloses that the particles have a cobalt concentration gradient varying continuously from the surface to the center, and that the selection of temperature during heat treatment is a routine, key parameter used to control and determine the degree of the cobalt gradient in a given particle. Thus, arriving at specific Co concentration values on the surface regions of the single particles falls within the level of ordinary skill in the art, as optimization of Co concentration gradients and coating distribution via routine heat-treatment temperature adjustment constitutes the optimization of a result-effective variable already recognized in the art to fine-tune electrochemical properties.
Regarding claim 4, Kim as modified by Celasun in the rejection of claim 1 above discloses the claimed invention except wherein a difference between the average cobalt content on the surfaces of the single particles and the cobalt content in the single particles is about 10 at% to about 60 at% based on the total amount of nickel and cobalt in the lithium nickel-based composite.
Celasun discloses a positive electrode active material for a lithium-ion battery, comprising a lithium transition metal-based oxide powder that comprises single crystal monolithic particles and has a center and a surface comprising Ni and Co, wherein the particles have a cobalt concentration gradient wherein the particle surface has a higher Co content than the particle center (claim 18) and wherein the cobalt concentration gradient varies continuously from the surface to the center of the particles ([0012]). Celasun further notes that optimizing the heat treatment temperature controls the degree of the cobalt gradient ([0051]). Thus, it should be noted that the cobalt concentration and gradient degree are result effective variables, because Celasun identifies heat treatment and surface-to-center ratios as criteria for defining the gradient structure ([0051]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to establish specific concentration ranges, such as high-concentration (≥30 at%) and low-concentration (≤25 at%) regions as required by claim 1 and yielding a Co content difference of 10 at% to 60 at% as required by claim 4, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the cobalt concentration and gradient degree because Celasun discloses that the particles have a cobalt concentration gradient varying continuously from the surface to the center, and that the selection of temperature during heat treatment is a routine, key parameter used to control and determine the degree of the cobalt gradient in a given particle.
Thus, arriving at specific Co concentration values or Co content differences (i.e. 10 at% to 60 at%) across the surface regions of the particles falls within the level of ordinary skill in the art, as optimization of Co concentration gradients and coating distribution via routine heat-treatment temperature adjustment constitutes the optimization of a result-effective variable already recognized in the art to fine-tune electrochemical properties.
Regarding claim 5, modified Kim teaches all feature of claim 1, including a second positive active material comprising a lithium nickel-based composite oxide. Claim 5 recites the lithium nickel-based composite oxide of the second positive active material is represented by Chemical Formula 11:
Lia11Nix11Coy11M111-x11-y11O2
wherein 0.9 ≤ a11 ≤ 1.8, 0.6 ≤ x11 ≤ 1, 0 ≤ y11 ≤ 0.15, and M11 is selected from the recited elements. Kim discloses the second positive active material is represented by Chemical Formula 1:
Lia(Ni1-x-y-zCoxMnyMz)O2
wherein Mz is an element selected from boron (B), magnesium (Mg), calcium (Ca), strontium (Sr), barium (Ba), titanium (Ti), vanadium (V), chromium (Cr), iron (Fe), copper (Cu), zirconium (Zr), and aluminum (Al), and 0.95 ≤ a ≤ 1.3, x ≤ (1-x-y-z), y ≤ (1-x-y-z), 0 < x < 1, 0 ≤ y < 1, and 0 ≤ z < 1 (claims 8-9).
Regarding the composition of the second positive active material, the composition of the “Lia(Ni1-x-y-zCoxMnyMz)O2” of Kim’s Chemical Formula 1 corresponds to Chemical Formula 11 of the claim, which recites Lia11Nix11Coy11M111-x11-y11O2, such that:
Lia of Chemical Formula 1 of Kim corresponds to Lia11,
Nil -x-y-z of Chemical Formula 1 of Kim corresponds to Nix11,
Cox of Chemical Formula 1 of Kim corresponds to Coy11, and
Mz of Chemical Formula 1 of Kim is an element selected from aluminum (Al), boron (B), barium (Ba), calcium (Ca), chromium (Cr), copper (Cu), iron (Fe), magnesium (Mg), strontium (Sr), titanium (Ti), vanadium (V), and zirconium (Zr) (claim 9; Kim lists these as options for the metal Mz, which corresponds to the M11 of Chemical Formula 11 of the claim).
Further, claim 5 recites that M11 is at least one element selected from a list, meaning that more than one M11 element may be present in the lithium nickel-based composite oxide of the second positive active material. Accordingly, Chemical Formula 1 of Kim comprising the additional Mny element still results in the claimed second positive active material composition, as instant claim 5 lists Mn as one of the possible elements in addition to the aluminum (Al), boron (B), barium (Ba), calcium (Ca), chromium (Cr), copper (Cu), iron (Fe), magnesium (Mg), strontium (Sr), titanium (Ti), vanadium (V), and zirconium (Zr) elements of Kim (Kim, claim 9).
Regarding the the ranges of each constituent for the limitation “Lia11Nix11Coy11M111-x11-y11O2 wherein 0.9 ≤ a11 ≤ 1.8, 0.6 ≤ x11 ≤ 1, and 0 ≤ y11 ≤ 0.15,” of the claim, the ranges of the constituents correlate to:
Lithium (a vs. a11): a Lia content of the Lia(Nil -x-y-zCoxMnyMz)O2 composite of Kim is disclosed in a range of 0.95 – 1.3 (claim 8), which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.9 ≤ a11 ≤ 1.8 of Chemical Formula 11,
Cobalt (x vs. y11): a Cox content of the Lia(Ni1-x-y-zCoxMnyMz)O2 composite of Kim is disclosed in a range of 0 < x < 1 (claim 8), which overlaps with the claimed range of 0 ≤ y11 ≤ 0.15 of Chemical Formula 11,
Nickel (1-x-y-z vs. x11): a Ni1-x-y-z content of the Lia(Ni1-x-y-zCoxMnyMz)O2 composite of Kim is disclosed to be 1-x-y-z, and given 0 < x < l, 0 ≤ y < l, and 0 ≤ z < l (claim 8), the Ni content of Kim can range broadly from near 0 to < 1, and thus the Ni content overlaps with the claimed range of 0.6 ≤ x11 ≤ 1 of Chemical Formula 11,
Manganese/Metal M (y/z vs. 1-x11-y11): an Mny/Mz content of the Lia(Nil -x-y-zCoxMnyMz)O2 composite of Kim is disclosed to be 0 ≤ y < 1 and 0 ≤ z < 1 for Mny/Mz, which overlaps with the claimed range of 1-x11-y11 (which defines the balance) of Chemical Formula 11.
Thus, the disclosures of Kim encompass the claimed lithium nickel-based composite oxide composition in Chemical Formula 11 for the second positive electrode active material, including the claimed Li, Ni, Co, and metal M11 selections and their respective ranges which overlap with the claimed ranges. Accordingly, when the prior art discloses a general range that overlaps or routinely encompasses the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness is established.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the battery of Kim to utilize the known second positive electrode active materials taught by Kim, because Kim teaches that a rechargeable lithium battery with such positive active materials may provide improved cell stability ([0011]), storage stability, cycle-life characteristics, high rate capacity characteristics at high temperatures ([0089]), and improved electrode plate density with respect to the positive active material ([0090]). In addition, the disclosed Li, Ni, Co, and transitional metal Mz ranges of Kim overlap with the claimed ranges for each respective element; thus, selection of values within the overlapping portions would have been an obvious matter of routine optimization with the predictable results.
Regarding claim 6, modified Kim teaches all feature of claim 5 as described above, and further teaches a second positive active material wherein in Chemical Formula 11, 0.9 ≤ x ≤ 1 and 0 ≤ y11 ≤ 0.1. Specifically, Kim teaches:
Cobalt (x vs. y11): a Cox content of the Lia(Ni1 -x-y-zCoxMnyMz)O2 composite of Kim is disclosed in a range of 0 < x < 1 (claim 8), which overlaps with the claimed range of 0 ≤ y11 ≤ 0.1 of Chemical Formula 11, and
Nickel (1-x-y-z vs. x11): a Ni1-x-y-z content of the Lia(Ni1-x-y-zCoxMnyMz)O2 composite of Kim is disclosed to be 1-x-y-z, and given 0 < x < 1, 0 ≤ y < 1, and 0 ≤ z < 1 (claim 8), the Ni content of Kim can range broadly from near 0 to < 1, and thus the Ni content overlaps with the claimed range of 0.9 ≤ x11 ≤ 1 of Chemical Formula 11.
A prima facie case of obviousness is established when the claimed ranges of components overlap with ranges disclosed in the prior art (see MPEP §2144.05). Furthermore, selecting optimized weight percent components for a known positive active material composite is a matter of routine optimization for one of ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the battery of Kim to utilize the claimed Li, Ni, Co, and transitional metal Mz ranges of Chemical Formula 11 for the lithium nickel-based oxide of the second positive electrode active material, because Kim discloses Li, Ni, Co, and transitional metal Mz ranges that overlap with the claimed ranges for each respective element; thus, selection of values within the overlapping portions would have been an obvious matter of routine optimization with the predictable results.
Regarding claim 7, modified Kim teaches all feature of claim 1, including:
(1) a first positive active material comprising a lithium nickel-based composite oxide and comprising secondary particles in which a plurality of primary particles are aggregated, and
(2) a second positive active material comprising a lithium nickel-based composite oxide and comprising single particles.
Regarding the first positive active material, Kim discloses that the first positive active material includes a secondary particle including at least two agglomerated primary particles ([0060]) and further discloses an average particle diameter of the secondary particle may be about 1 μm to about 20 μm ([0041]), which overlaps with the claimed range of about 7 µm to about 25 µm for the average particle size of the secondary particles.
Regarding the second positive active material comprising single particles, Kim discloses the average particle diameter of the particles in the second positive active material, which has a monolith structure and comprises a nickel-based positive active material (claim 1), is about 0.05 μm to about 10 μm (claim 6), which overlaps with the claimed range of about 1 µm to about 7 µm for the average particle size of the single particles.
A prima facie case of obviousness is established when the claimed ranges of components overlap with ranges disclosed in the prior art (see MPEP § 2144.05). Furthermore, selecting optimized particle sizes for a known positive active material composite is a matter of routine optimization for one of ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize or select a secondary particle size and/or single particle size within the overlapping ranges of the first and second positive active materials, respectively, by routine experimentation, with the expectation of obtaining predictable electrochemical performance properties.
Regarding claim 8, modified Kim teaches all feature of claim 1, including a first positive active material and a second positive active material as described above. Regarding the wt% of the second positive active material (the second positive active material has particles with a monolith structure and comprises a second nickel-based oxide, [0008] and [0044]), Kim discloses that the second positive active material is included in an amount of about 10 wt% to about 50 wt% based on a total weight of the positive active material (claim 2), which is identical to the claimed range.
Regarding the wt% of the first positive active material, wherein the first positive active material is in an amount of about 50 wt% to about 90 wt% based on the total amount of the first positive active material and the second positive active material, Kim discloses the positive active material may include:
a first positive active material (the first positive active material includes secondary particles, which are formed of at least two agglomerated primary particles) and
a second positive active material, wherein the second positive active material has particles and a monolith structure.
Kim further discloses the second positive active material, which includes particles with a monolith structure, is included in an amount of about 10 wt% to about 50 wt% based on the total weight of the positive active material (claim 2). The instant claim recites that the first positive active material is present in an amount of about 50 wt% to about 90 wt% based on the total amount of the first and second positive active materials. Because the composition of Kim consists of or is comprised of the first and second positive active materials in order to create the positive active material as a whole, the balance of the positive active material composition necessarily ranges from 50 wt% to 90 wt% (calculated as 100 wt% - 50 wt% = 50 wt% and 100 wt% - 10 wt% = 90 wt%).
Therefore, the numerical range of the first positive active material claimed by the applicant is fully and inherently encompassed by the mathematical balance of the components explicitly taught by Kim.
Accordingly, a prima facie case of obviousness is established when the claimed ranges of components overlap with ranges disclosed in the prior art (see MPEP § 2144.05). Furthermore, selecting optimized weight percents of the first and second positive active materials for a known positive active material composite is a matter of routine optimization for one of ordinary skill in the art; it would have been obvious to optimize or select an amount of the first or second positive active material to be within the overlapping wt% ranges, by routine experimentation, with the expectation of obtaining predictable electrochemical performance properties.
Regarding claim 9, modified Kim teaches all feature of claim 1, including a first positive active material comprising a lithium nickel-based composite oxide, as described above. Claim 9 recites the lithium nickel-based composite oxide of the first positive active material is represented by Chemical Formula 1:
Lia1Nix1M1y1M21-x1-y1O2
wherein 0.9 ≤ a1 ≤ 1.8, 0.3 ≤ x1 ≤ 1, 0 ≤ y1 ≤ 0.7, and M1 and M2 are each independently at least one element selected from the recited elements. Kim discloses the first positive active material comprises a nickel-based positive active material (claim 1), where both the first and second positive active materials may be represented by Chemical Formula 1 (claims 8- 9):
Lia(Ni1 -x-y-zCoxMnyMz)O2
wherein Mz is an element selected from boron (B), magnesium (Mg), calcium (Ca), strontium (Sr), barium (Ba), titanium (Ti), vanadium (V), chromium (Cr), iron (Fe), copper (Cu), zirconium (Zr), and aluminum (Al), and 0.95 ≤ a ≤ 1.3, x ≤ (1-x-y-z), y ≤ (1-x-y-z), 0 < x < 1, 0 ≤ y < 1, and 0 ≤ z < 1.
Regarding the composition of the first positive active material, the limitation “Lia(Ni1-x-y-zCoxMnyMz)O2” of Kim’s Chemical Formula 1 corresponds to Chemical Formula 1 of the claim, which recites Lia1Nix1M1y1M21-x1-y1O2, such that:
Lia of Chemical Formula 1 of Kim corresponds to Lia1,
Nil -x-y-z of Chemical Formula 1 of Kim corresponds to Nix1,
Cox of Chemical Formula 1 of Kim corresponds to M1y1 (Co is listed as an option for M1y1 in instant claim 9), and
Mz of Chemical Formula 1 of Kim is an element selected from aluminum (Al), boron (B), barium (Ba), calcium (Ca), chromium (Cr), copper (Cu), iron (Fe), magnesium (Mg), strontium (Sr), titanium (Ti), vanadium (V), and zirconium (Zr) (claim 9; Kim lists these as options for the metal Mz, which corresponds to metal M2 of Chemical Formula 1 of the claim).
Regarding the “Lia1Nix1M1y1M21-x1-y1O2 wherein 0.9 ≤ a1 ≤ 1.8, 0.3 ≤ x1 ≤ 1, and 0 ≤ y1 ≤ 0.7,” limitation of the claim for the ranges of each constituent, the ranges of the constituents correlate to:
Lithium (a vs. a1): a Lia content of the Lia(Ni1-x-y-zCoxMnyMz)O2 composite of Kim is disclosed in a range of 0.95 – 1.3 (claims 8-9), which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.9 ≤ a1 ≤ 1.8 of Chemical Formula 1,
Nickel (1-x-y-z vs. x1): a Ni1-x-y-z content of the Lia(Ni1-x-y-zCoxMnyMz)O2 composite of Kim is disclosed to be 1-x-y-z, and given 0 < x < 1, 0 ≤ y < 1, and 0 ≤ z < 1 (claims 8-9), the Ni content of Kim can range broadly from near 0 to < 1, and thus the Ni content overlaps with the claimed range of 0.3 ≤ x1 ≤ 1 of Chemical Formula 1,
Cobalt (x vs. y1): a Cox content of the Lia(Ni1-x-y-zCoxMnyMz)O2 composite of Kim is disclosed in a range of 0 < x < 1 (claims 8-9), which overlaps with the claimed range of 0 ≤ y1 ≤ 0.15 for M1y1 of Chemical Formula 1,
Manganese/Metal M (y/z vs. 1-x1-y1): an Mny/Mz content of the Lia(Ni1-x-y-zCoxMnyMz)O2 composite of Kim is disclosed to be 0 ≤ y < 1 and 0 ≤ z < 1 for Mny/Mz, which overlaps with the claimed range of 0 ≤ y1 ≤ 0.7 for M1 and overlaps with the claimed range of 1-x1-y1 (which defines the balance) for M2 of Chemical Formula 1.
Thus, the disclosures of Kim encompass the claimed lithium nickel-based composite oxide composition in Chemical Formula 1 for the first positive electrode active material, including the claimed Li, Ni, Co, metal M1 and metal M2 selections, and their respective ranges which overlap with the claimed ranges. Accordingly, when the prior art discloses a general range that overlaps or routinely encompasses the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness is established.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the battery of Kim to utilize the known first positive electrode active materials taught by Kim because Kim teaches that a rechargeable lithium battery with such positive active materials may provide improved cell stability ([0011]), storage stability, cycle-life characteristics, high rate capacity characteristics at high temperatures ([0089]), and improved electrode plate density with respect to the positive active material ([0090]). In addition, the disclosed Li, Ni, Co, and transitional metal Mz ranges of Kim overlap with the claimed ranges for each respective element; thus, selection of values within the overlapping portions would have been an obvious matter of routine optimization with the predictable results.
Regarding claim 20, Kim teaches a rechargeable lithium battery (claim 1) comprising a positive electrode comprising the positive active material of claim 1, a negative electrode, and an electrolyte (claim 14).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXIS R OSTWALT whose telephone number is (571)272-8650. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am-5pm.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 5712707692. 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.
/A.R.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights