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 with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 05/21/2026 is acknowledged, however, provides no arguments as to the deficiencies of the restriction requirement and thus will be treated as without traverse.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 08/01/2023, 06/04/2024, 07/22/2024, 11/15/2024, 07/08/2025, and 05/21/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-13 and 22 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 states “and comprising a boron coating on a surface of the secondary particle, and a second positive active material…”and comprising the boron coating portion on a surface of the single particle” thus it is unclear if the boron coating that is provided in the second positive active material is the same or different than the first positive active material. Examiner will interpret only a single boron coating is needed that can at least come into contact with the first and second positive active materials is needed to read on the claim. Further clarification is required to overcome the 112B rejection. Claims 2-13 and 22 are rejected for depending upon claim 1.
Claim 1 also states “uneven surface with substantial irregularities and a flat surface without substantial irregularities” and is indefinite as the phrasing “substantial irregularities” is not defined within the claim. Examiner notes the claims 5 and 7 contain limitations that further define the “substantial irregularities” being greater than 15 nm in length and thus the claims will interpret a surface roughness of less than 15 nm to be a flat surface while greater than 15 nm is an uneven surface.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-13 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun et al. (US 2021/0074998 A1) in view of Komatsu et al. (US 2023/0052499 A1- having priority date of 11/28/2019).
Regarding claim 1, Yun discloses a positive active material for a rechargeable lithium battery, the positive active material comprising (abstract):
a first positive active material comprising a first lithium nickel-based composite oxide in a form of a secondary particle in which a plurality of primary particles are aggregated ([0006], [0019], [0048-0055] nickel based composite oxide for the first positive active material made of primary particles forming a secondary particle), and
a second positive active material comprising a second lithium nickel-based composite oxide in a form of a single particle and comprising the boron coating portion on a surface of the single particle ([0019] second positive active material is a nickel based material and has a monolith structure that reads as a single particle and contains a coating of a boron containing compound).
Yun discloses wherein the second positive active material comprises the boron coating and is explicitly silent with respect to where in the boron coating can be on a surface of the secondary particle of the first positive active material, however, Yun further discloses [0097] that the first and second active materials are mixed and thus when mixed would have the boron coating in contact with at least partial regions of the secondary particle and thus would appear to read on the first positive active material having a boron coating. Even if not, Yun teaches wherein the boron coating is applied to prevent or reduce diffusion of oxygen atoms to the surface and thus may suppress or decrease the structural collapse and pulverization resulting from repeated charging and discharging ([0043]), therefore, it would have been in view of a skilled artisan to apply the boron coating to the first active material in order to prevent or reduce diffusion of oxygen atoms to the surface and thus may suppress or decrease the structural collapse and pulverization resulting from repeated charging and discharging as taught by Yun. The resulting structure would read on both the first and second positive electrode active materials having a boron coating portion.
Yun further discloses wherein the second positive active material has a monolithic structure, however, is silent with respect to wherein the second positive active material has an uneven surface with substantial irregularities and a flat surface without substantial irregularities.
Komatsu discloses a secondary battery and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of battery cells. Komatsu further discloses wherein the positive electrode active material can be made of particles ([0122]) and wherein the active material can have regions contain a larger surface roughness and regions that have a smaller surface roughness ([0034-0036]) as the structure hardly generates cracks when a pressure is applied and thus can maintaining the particle shape and durability of the active material ([0028-0029], [0034-0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to incorporate the teaching of Komatsu such that the second positive active material has a surface roughness formed with substantial irregularities, such as a larger surface roughness, and with minor irregularities, such as a smaller surface roughness, in order to increase the durability of the active material and prevent cracks from occurring. This modification would render obvious all the claim limitations of claim 1 as the particle of the second positive active material can have both a rough surface that reads on the substantial irregularities and a smaller surface roughness without substantial irregularities that would read on the flat surface as claimed.
Regarding claim 2, modified Yun discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Yun further discloses wherein the boron coating portion comprises a boron containing compound and the boron containing compound comprises boron oxide, lithium borate or a combination thereof ([0042] boron oxide or lithium borate).
Regarding claim 3, modified Yun discloses all the claim limitations of claim 2. Yun further discloses wherein the boron containing compound comprises B2O3, LiBO2, Li3B7O12, Li6B4O9, Li3B11O18, Li2B4O7, and Li3BO3 or combinations thereof ([0042]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Yun discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Yun further discloses wherein a boron content relative to a total content of elements other than lithium and oxygen in the positive active material is about 0.01 wt% to about 3 wt% ([0096] boron precursor is roughly 0.01-.35 parts by weight of the active material). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 6, modified Yun discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Komatsu further discloses wherein the uneven surface of the second positive active material has an average roughness of greater than or equal to about 1.2 nm and a root mean square roughness of greater than or equal to about 1.5 nm ([0028] root mean square surface roughness of 3 nm or less; claim 13, 3 nm or less for the surface roughness and thus overlaps with that of the claimed invention as the surface roughness can be less than 3 nm and thus on average can be less than 1 and less than 0.5 nm). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 7, modified Yun discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Komatsu further discloses wherein the flat surface of the second positive active material has a maximum roughness of less than or equal to about 14 nm (([0028] root mean square surface roughness of 3 nm or less; claim 13, 3 nm or less for the surface roughness and thus overlaps with that of the claimed invention as the surface roughness can be less than 3 nm and thus on average can be less than 1 and less than 0.5 nm). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 8, modified Yun discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Komatsu further discloses wherein the flat surface of the second positive active material has an average roughness of less than or equal to about 1.2 nm and a root mean square roughness of less than or equal to about 1.5 nm ([0028] root mean square surface roughness of 3 nm or less; claim 13, 3 nm or less for the surface roughness and thus overlaps with that of the claimed invention as the surface roughness can be less than 3 nm and thus on average can be less than 1 and less than 0.5 nm and the smaller regions can be read as the flat portion region). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 9, modified Yun discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Yun is silent with respect to wherein a ratio of the uneven surface to a total surface area of the second positive active material is about 40 % to about 80%. While Yun is silent with respect to the amount of the particle that contain a higher surface roughness than the other regions of the particle, however, it would have been obvious to adjust the surface roughness of the particle of the second active material to have a higher surface roughness covering 40-80 % of the second active material particle absent evidentiary data or unexpected results.
Regarding claim 11, modified Yun discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Yun further discloses wherein an average particle diameter of the first positive active material is about 5 to 25 micrometers ([0037] average particle diameter of the secondary particle may be between 1-20 micrometers) and an average particle diameter of the second positive active material is about 1-8 micrometers ([0087] average particle diameter of the second composite metal hydroxide may be 0.5 micrometers or greater and less than or equal to 10 micrometers). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 12, modified Yun discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Yun further discloses wherein the first positive active material is about 50 to 90 wt% and the second positive active material is about 10 to 50 wt% of a total amount of the first positive active material and the second positive active material ([0046] second positive electrode active material is about 10-50 wt% based on the total weight of the positive active material for the lithium battery). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 13, modified Yun discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Yun further discloses wherein the first lithium nickel based composite oxide can be Lia(Ni1-x-y-zCoxMnyMz)O2 ([0048-0053]) and thus reads on the claimed chemical formula 1, and
Wherein the second lithium nickel based composite oxide can be Lia(Ni1-x-y-zCoxMnyMz)O2 ([0048-0053]) and thus reads on the claimed chemical formula 2.
Regarding claim 22, modified Yun discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1, specifically a positive electrode comprising the positive active material of claim 1, and further discloses a negative electrode and an electrolyte (Figure 4; abstract; [0008] negative electrode and electrolyte).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun et al. (US 2021/0074998 A1) in view of Komatsu et al. (US 2023/0052499 A1- having priority date of 11/28/2019) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yasumiishi et al. (US 2018/0287152 A1).
Regarding claim 5, modified Yun is silent with respect to wherein the uneven surface of the second positive active material has a maximum roughness of greater than or equal to about 15 nm.
Yasumiishi discloses a cathode material for a secondary battery and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of battery cells. Yasumiishi discloses wherein the active material particles can have a surface roughness of 15 nm or more (abstract; [0013], [0031]) to prevent a decrease in battery capacity ([0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to modify the uneven surface roughness regions to have a maximum roughness of greater than 15 nm as taught by Yasumiishi in order to prevent a decrease in battery capacity for the battery cell. The resulting modification would have the uneven surface having a maximum roughness above 15 nm and thus would render obvious all the claim limitations of claim. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun et al. (US 2021/0074998 A1) in view of Komatsu et al. (US 2023/0052499 A1- having priority date of 11/28/2019) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Choi et al. (US 2021/0119208 A1).
Regarding claim 10, modified Yun discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Yun fails to disclose the specific surface area of the positive active material.
Choi discloses a positive electrode active material for a secondary battery and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of battery cells. Choi discloses wherein the positive electrode active material can have a reduced size such as a specific surface area of 0.1 to 1.5 m2/g to significantly reduce life and voltage decay problems (claim 10; [0040]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to adjust the specific surface area of the positive electrode of Yun to have a specific surface area between 0.1-1.5 m2/g as taught by Choi in order to significantly reduce life and voltage decay problems. The resulting modification would render obvious all the claim limitations of claim 10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim et al. (US 2020/0127276 A1)- discloses a lithium secondary battery having a plurality of active materials for the cathode and thus and analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of battery cells.
Oshita et al. (US 2020/0358094 A1)- discloses a positive electrode active material having a boron coating compound and is analogous with the instant invention as pertaining to cathode materials that are coated with boron.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adam J Francis whose telephone number is (571)272-1021. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 7 am-4 pm 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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571)270-7871. 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.
/ADAM J FRANCIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights