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 .
This is a final office action in response to Applicant's remarks and amendments filed on 04/16/2026. Claims 1, 3-7, 9-11, and 13 are currently amended. Claims 2 and 8 are canceled. Claims 1, 3-7, and 9-14 are pending review in this action. The previous objections regarding the Drawings, the Specification, and the Claims are withdrawn in light of Applicant's amendment to the Drawings, the Specification, and the Claims. The previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are withdrawn in light of Applicant's amendment to Claims 1, 3, and 5. The previous 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections are withdrawn in light of Applicant's amendment to Claim 1, however the previously cited prior art has been upheld as reading on the amended claims. Updated rejections necessitated by Applicant’s amendment are detailed below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on 03/31/2026 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 12 recites “wherein the cathode active material contains no cobalt (Co)” in lines 1-2. Claim 1, on which Claim 12 depends, recites “the shell of the secondary particle includes a concentration gradient region in which a concentration of cobalt (Co) decreases from the surface of the secondary particle toward the center thereof” in lines 16-18. The cathode active material cannot possess a region where Co has a concentration gradient while also containing no Co, as a concentration gradient of Co cannot exist if the amount of Co must be zero. Thus, Claim 12 fails to include all the limitations of the claim (Claim 1) upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3-7, and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2014/0072874 A1) further in view of Lee et al. (US 2018/0212237 A1).
In Regards to Claim 1:
Kim discloses a cathode active material for a secondary battery (lithium battery, 1), comprising a lithium composite oxide (lithium transition metal oxide) represented by Formula 1 (see below) and containing a layered structure of overlithiated oxide (Figures 1 and 3, [0022, 0027-0029, 0079]). Kim further discloses that the lithium composite oxide (lithium transition metal oxide) includes a secondary particle (composite cathode active material), the secondary particle (composite cathode active material) including a primary particle (composite cathode active material), and the primary particle (composite cathode active material) includes a crystallite (Figure 1, [0025-0026]). Kim further discloses that the secondary particle (composite cathode active material) comprises a core and a shell (coating layer) occupying at least a part of the surface of the core (Figure 1, [0023]). Kim further discloses that the shell (coating layer) of the secondary particle (composite cathode active material) comprises a crystalline metal oxide which is formed from a calcination process (Figure 1, [0015, 0024-0025]). Kim further teaches that the crystallization of the shell (coating layer) serves to improve electrical conductivity [0025]. Kim further discloses that the shell (coating layer) comprises a lithium metal oxide [0049, 0060]).
Kim further discloses that Formula 1 is: pLi2MO3-(1-p)LiMeO2, wherein 0<p<1 [0030-0031]. Kim further discloses that M is at least one of Mo, Nb, Fe, Cr, V, Zn, Mg, Ni, Al, Ti, Zr, Mn, Ba, Sr, W, Ca, and Si; and Me is at least one of Fe, Cr, V, Co, Cu, Mg, Ni, Al, Ti, Zr, B, and Mn [0031].
Kim is deficient in disclosing 1) that the shell of the secondary particle includes a concentration gradient region in which a concentration gradient of nickel (Ni) decreases from a surface of the secondary particle toward a center thereof; 2) that the shell of the secondary particle includes a concentration gradient region in which a concentration gradient of cobalt (Co) decreases from a surface of the secondary particle toward a center thereof; 3) that the shell of the secondary particle includes a concentration gradient region in which a concentration gradient of manganese (Mn) increases from a surface of the secondary particle toward a center thereof; and 4) that the number of moles of a nickel (Ni), cobalt (Co), and manganese (Mn) to the total number of moles of M1 (M) and M2 (Me) in Formula 1 is NCM/M, wherein the NCM/M in the shell is different than in the core of the secondary particle.
Lee discloses a cathode active material (positive electrode active material, 10) for a secondary battery (Figure 1, [0028]). Lee further discloses that the cathode active material (positive electrode active material, 10) comprises a composite metal oxide comprising nickel, cobalt, and a metal element (M1), and has a core (1) – shell (2) particle structure (Figure 1, [0028, 0039-0040, 0050]). Lee further discloses that M1 may be Mn [0040]. Lee further discloses that the cathode active material (positive electrode active material, 10) may have a concentration gradient in the shell (2), such that nickel, cobalt, and M1 may be distributed from the center to the surface of the shell (2) such that the concentration profile becomes positive or negative (Figure 1, [0050, 0052]). Lee further discloses that the concentration gradient results in improved structural stability and increased thermal stability [0052].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to implement a concentration gradient in the shell of the secondary particle of Ni, Co, and Mn, as such a concentration gradient is known in the art as suitable for a shell in a cathode active material for a secondary battery to possess, as taught by Lee. By doing so, the skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success in providing a cathode active material with improved structural stability and increased thermal stability, as taught by Lee. Furthermore, the selection of a known configuration based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07).
Upon the above modification, it would be further obvious to one of ordinary skill to select for the concentration gradient in a direction from a surface towards a center of the secondary particles for each of Ni, Co, and Mn, a decreasing gradient, a decreasing gradient, and an increasing gradient, respectively, as such a configuration is one of a finite number of possible configurations that the secondary particle could possess when Ni, Co, and Mn, each have a concentration gradient in a shell in a direction from a surface to the center of the secondary particle (MPEP 2143 I, E). For example, each of Ni, Co, and Mn may only have a concentration gradient from a surface to the center of the secondary particle which increases, decreases, or is continuous.
Upon the above modifications, the skilled artisan would appreciate that when the concentration gradient of Ni, Co, and Mn is present in the shell and not in the core of the secondary particle, the NCM/M would be expected to be different in the core than in the shell of the secondary particle. As such, all of the limitations of Claim 1 are met.
In Regards to Claim 3 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Kim as modified by Lee discloses the cathode active material of Claim 1 as set forth above. As detailed above in the rejection of Claim 1, the skilled artisan would appreciate that when the concentration gradient of Ni, Co, and Mn is present in the shell and not in the core of the secondary particle, the NCM/M would be expected to be different in the core than in the shell of the primary particle. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 3 are met.
In Regards to Claim 4 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Kim as modified by Lee discloses the cathode active material of Claim 1 as set forth above. As described above in the rejection of Claim 1, the shell of the primary particle of modified Kim comprises a concentration gradient portion wherein each of Ni, Co, and Mn have a concentration gradient. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 4 are met.
In Regards to Claim 5 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Kim as modified by Lee discloses the cathode active material of Claim 1 as set forth above. As detailed above in the rejection of Claim 1, the skilled artisan would appreciate that when the concentration gradient of Ni, Co, and Mn is present in the shell and not in the core of the secondary particle, the NCM/M would be expected to be different in the core than in the shell of the crystallite. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 5 are met.
In Regards to Claim 6 (Dependent Upon Claim 5):
Kim as modified by Lee discloses the cathode active material of Claim 5 as set forth above. As described above in the rejection of Claim 1, the shell of the crystallite of modified Kim comprises a concentration gradient portion wherein each of Ni, Co, and Mn have a concentration gradient. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 6 are met.
In Regards to Claim 7 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Kim as modified by Lee discloses the cathode active material of Claim 1 as set forth above. Upon the modification detailed above in the rejection of Claim 1, the skilled artisan would appreciate that in the primary particle when the shell possesses a concentration gradient of metal particles while the core remains constant, it would be expected that the Ni/M is higher in the shell than in the core as M1 and M2 are both subject to change and the concentration of Ni is increasing as they move away from the core. Upon the above modification, all of the limitations of Claim 7 are met.
In Regards to Claim 9 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Kim as modified by Lee discloses the cathode active material of Claim 1 as set forth above. Upon the modification detailed above in the rejection of Claim 1, the shell of the primary particle comprises a concentration gradient portion in which the concentration of Ni decreases towards the center from the surface of the primary particle. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 9 are met.
In Regards to Claim 10 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Kim as modified by Lee discloses the cathode active material of Claim 1 as set forth above. As detailed above in the rejection of Claim 1, modified Kim discloses that the shell of the crystallite comprises a concentration gradient portion in which the concentration of Ni decreases towards the center from the surface of the crystallite. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 10 are met.
In Regards to Claim 11 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Kim as modified by Lee discloses the cathode active material of Claim 1 as set forth above. Upon the modification detailed above in the rejection of Claim 1, the skilled artisan would appreciate that in the primary particle when the shell possesses a concentration gradient of metal particles while the core remains constant, it would be expected that the Co/M is higher in the shell than in the core as M1 and M2 are both subject to change and the concentration of Co is increasing as they move away from the core. Upon the above modification, all of the limitations of Claim 11 are met.
In Regards to Claim 12 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
As addressed above in the section titled “Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112 (d)”, Claim 12 fails to include all the limitations of the claim (Claim 1) upon which it depends. However, in an effort to promote compact prosecution, the following rejection is made to progress prosecution in the situation that the Applicant may amend Claim 1 to not require Co.
As described above in the rejection of Claim 1, Kim discloses that Formula 1 is: pLi2MO3-(1-p)LiMeO2, wherein 0<p<1 [0030-0031]. Kim further discloses that M is at least one of Mo, Nb, Fe, Cr, V, Zn, Mg, Ni, Al, Ti, Zr, Mn, Ba, Sr, W, Ca, and Si; and Me is at least one of Fe, Cr, V, Co, Cu, Mg, Ni, Al, Ti, Zr, B, and Mn [0031].
As such, the skilled artisan would appreciate that there are numerous possible embodiments of Kim wherein the cathode active material contains no cobalt. For example, Formula 1 may be 0.5Li2NiO3-0.5LiFeO2. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 12 are met.
In Regards to Claim 13 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Kim as modified by Lee discloses the cathode active material of Claim 1 as set forth above. Upon the modification detailed above in the rejection of Claim 1, the skilled artisan would appreciate that in the primary particle when the shell possesses a concentration gradient of metal particles while the core remains constant, it would be expected that the Mn/M is lower in the shell than in the core as M1 and M2 are both subject to change and the concentration of Mn is decreasing as they move away from the core. Upon the above modification, all of the limitations of Claim 13 are met.
In Regards to Claim 14 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Kim as modified by Lee discloses the cathode active material of Claim 1 as set forth above. Kim discloses a secondary battery (lithium battery, 1) comprising the cathode active material of Claim 1 (Figure 3, [0022]). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 14 are met.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that the combination of Kim et al. (US 2014/0072874 A1) and Lee et al. (US 2018/0212237 A1) fail to address all of the limitations of amended Claim 1, specifically the limitations addressing the concentration gradients of each of Ni, Co, and Mn, each having a specific direction in which the gradient progresses (i.e., increasing or decreasing from a surface to a center).
The examiner respectfully disagrees. As described above in the rejection of Claim 1, Kim discloses a cathode active material for a secondary battery (lithium battery, 1), comprising a lithium composite oxide (lithium transition metal oxide) represented by Formula 1 (see below) and containing a layered structure of overlithiated oxide (Figures 1 and 3, [0022, 0027-0029, 0079]). Kim further discloses that the lithium composite oxide (lithium transition metal oxide) includes a secondary particle (composite cathode active material), the secondary particle (composite cathode active material) including a primary particle (composite cathode active material), and the primary particle (composite cathode active material) includes a crystallite (Figure 1, [0025-0026]). Kim further discloses that the secondary particle (composite cathode active material) comprises a core and a shell (coating layer) occupying at least a part of the surface of the core (Figure 1, [0023]). Kim further discloses that the shell (coating layer) comprises a lithium metal oxide [0049, 0060]).
Kim further discloses that Formula 1 is: pLi2MO3-(1-p)LiMeO2, wherein 0<p<1 [0030-0031]. Kim further discloses that M is at least one of Mo, Nb, Fe, Cr, V, Zn, Mg, Ni, Al, Ti, Zr, Mn, Ba, Sr, W, Ca, and Si; and Me is at least one of Fe, Cr, V, Co, Cu, Mg, Ni, Al, Ti, Zr, B, and Mn [0031].
Kim is deficient in disclosing 1) that the shell of the secondary particle includes a concentration gradient region in which a concentration gradient of nickel (Ni) decreases from a surface of the secondary particle toward a center thereof; 2) that the shell of the secondary particle includes a concentration gradient region in which a concentration gradient of cobalt (Co) decreases from a surface of the secondary particle toward a center thereof; 3) that the shell of the secondary particle includes a concentration gradient region in which a concentration gradient of manganese (Mn) increases from a surface of the secondary particle toward a center thereof; and 4) that the number of moles of a nickel (Ni), cobalt (Co), and manganese (Mn) to the total number of moles of M1 (M) and M2 (Me) in Formula 1 is NCM/M, wherein the NCM/M in the shell is different than in the core of the secondary particle.
Lee discloses a cathode active material (positive electrode active material, 10) for a secondary battery (Figure 1, [0028]). Lee further discloses that the cathode active material (positive electrode active material, 10) comprises a composite metal oxide comprising nickel, cobalt, and a metal element (M1), and has a core (1) – shell (2) particle structure (Figure 1, [0028, 0039-0040, 0050]). Lee further discloses that M1 may be Mn [0040]. Lee further discloses that the cathode active material (positive electrode active material, 10) may have a concentration gradient in the shell (2), such that nickel, cobalt, and M1 may be distributed from the center to the surface of the shell (2) such that the concentration profile becomes positive or negative (Figure 1, [0050, 0052]). Lee further discloses that the concentration gradient results in improved structural stability and increased thermal stability [0052].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to implement a concentration gradient in the shell of the secondary particle of Ni, Co, and Mn, as such a concentration gradient is known in the art as suitable for a shell in a cathode active material for a secondary battery to possess, as taught by Lee. By doing so, the skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success in providing a cathode active material with improved structural stability and increased thermal stability, as taught by Lee. Furthermore, the selection of a known configuration based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07).
Upon the above modification, it would be further obvious to one of ordinary skill to select for the concentration gradient in a direction from a surface towards a center of the secondary particles for each of Ni, Co, and Mn, a decreasing gradient, a decreasing gradient, and an increasing gradient, respectively, as such a configuration is one of a finite number of possible configurations that the secondary particle could possess when Ni, Co, and Mn, each have a concentration gradient in a shell in a direction from a surface to the center of the secondary particle (MPEP 2143 I, E). For example, each of Ni, Co, and Mn may only have a concentration gradient from a surface to the center of the secondary particle which increases, decreases, or is continuous.
Thus, the skilled artisan would appreciate that each of Ni, Co, and Mn have concentration gradients in a specific direction (i.e., increasing or decreasing) from the surface to the core.
The Applicant further argues that Kim is primarily concerned with surface treatment and coating technology and Lee is primarily concerned with bulk compositional control, while the instant application is primarily concerned with internal structural design and transition metal concentration distribution which results in improvements in charge/discharge stability and suppression of phase transition. The Applicant specifically argues that even if the skilled artisan were to combine Kim and Lee, the combination would not teach a multi-level core-shell structure across secondary particles, primary particles, and crystallites, a continuous and controlled concentration gradient of transition metals specifically within the shell region, or a designed compositional pattern of Ni, Co, and Mn to optimize electrochemical performance.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. While the examiner acknowledges and appreciates that the instant application is primarily concerned with internal structural design and transition metal concentration distribution, and that the cited prior art does not necessarily have the same focus. However, the skilled artisan would appreciate that the limitations of the instant claims as currently written are met by the combination of Kim and Lee (see rejections above), regardless of the intended application.
The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY E FREEMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1498. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30AM-5:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Miriam Stagg can be reached at (571)-270-5256. 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.
/E.E.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights