A POSITIVE ELECTRODE ACTIVE MATERIAL FOR RECHARGEABLE LITHIUM-ION BATTERIES
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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to communication filed on 2/17/2026:
Claims 19-33 have been amended; no new matter has been entered.
Previous rejections under 35 USC 112(a) and (b) have been withdrawn due to amendment.
Previous claim objections have been withdrawn due to amendment.
Previous rejections under 35 USC 103 have been upheld.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant discloses: “Kim US describes improving filling density by mixing coarse and fine lithium nickel complex oxides having partially overlapping particle-size ranges and a fine fraction of up to 25 wt%. However, the materials disclosed in Kim US are conventionally sintered secondary particles and are not described as single-crystalline. As a result, Kim US does not provide information about the behavior of single-crystalline powders. While some numerical overlaps exist in particle-size or weight-fraction ranges, that overlap occurs for polycrystalline materials rather than single-crystalline materials. This distinction is critical, as the unique properties and performance characteristics of single-crystalline materials cannot be inferred from teachings limited to polycrystalline systems.”
The Examiner respectfully traverses. Kim US does not indicate a polycrystalline system anywhere in the reference.
The Applicant discloses: “In addition, and with respect to claim 26, the reported density measurements in Kim US are obtained at approximately 0.3 t/cm2, corresponding to about 30 MPa. These compaction conditions are materially different from the uniaxial pressing protocol recited in claim 26, which specifies 207 MPa applied for 30 seconds. As a result, Kim US does not establish pressed-density performance under the test conditions of claim 26.”
The Examiner respectfully traverses. The Examiner has previously acknowledged Kim US not disclosing the pressing protocol by establishing it as a product-by-process limitation. The Applicant does not address how the pressing protocol is not such a limitation. MPEP 2145: If a prima facie case of obviousness is established, the burden shifts to the applicant to come forward with arguments and/or evidence to rebut the prima facie case. See, e.g., In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 692, 16 USPQ2d 1897, 1901 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (en banc).
The Applicant discloses: “Sugie does not bridge these differences. Sugie addresses surface modification within a single lithium composite metallic oxide particle to improve electrochemical stability. Its discussion of "primary particles as if being a single crystal" concerns internal structural continuity within one powder, rather than the use of two distinct powders that are each single-crystalline and are combined in defined size and weight-fraction ranges. Sugie does not describe mixing two separate powders, nor does it discuss optimizing pressed density through bimodal particle-size distributions under high-pressure compaction. Accordingly, Sugie does not supply the missing elements of a two-powder, single-crystalline NMC/NCA system or the pressed-density benchmark of claim 26.”
The Examiner respectfully traverses. Paragraph 0171 of Sugie discloses the steps for forming the first primary particles and the second primary particles. The respective primary particles are presumed to be in a state of single crystal.
The Applicant discloses: “Kim WO describes pressed-density measurements near 200 MPa. However, Kim WO adopts a different morphology for NMC/NCA materials than the claimed materials. In its NMC/NCA embodiments, large polycrystalline materials are combined with smaller single- crystal (monolithic) materials. Kim WO explains that the polycrystalline component is mechanically fragile during calendaring and that the smaller monolithic component is included to cushion the larger particles and reduce damage, as reflected in parameters such as ID10/IB and corrected pressed density. This design rationale depends on the larger component being polycrystalline. Kim WO does not propose changing the polycrystalline component into a monolithic NMC/NCA powder, and making such a modification would undermine the purpose of the reference.”
The Examiner respectfully traverses. Kim WO was not relied on by the Examiner to address the morphology of the active material. The reference was used to address the laser diffraction analysis to obtain a particle size distribution. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
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 18, 19-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2011/0240913 A1), Sugie et al. (US 2017/0149060 A1), and further in view of Kim et al. (WO 2019/166350 A1).
Regarding claims 18, 19-20, 23-25, 29, and 33, Kim et al. teach a positive electrode active material for lithium-ion secondary batteries (Abstract), whereby said positive electrode active material comprises Li, a metal M', and oxygen, wherein the metal M' comprises Ni, Co, and either Mn or Al and optionally one or more elements selected from: B, Ba, Sr, Mg, Nb, Ti, W, F, and Zr (Claim 4 discloses lithium nickel metal oxides that can comprise Co, Mn, Al, Mg, and Ti.),
wherein the positive electrode active material is a mixture of lithium transition metal oxide powders, wherein the mixture comprises a first lithium transition metal oxide powder and a second lithium transition metal oxide powder (Abstract; Claim 1; Paragraphs 0024; 0039 discloses the positive active material includes first and second lithium nickel complex oxides. A positive electrode and lithium battery include the positive active material which can comprise powders.)
wherein the first lithium transition metal oxide powder constitutes a first weight fraction φA of the positive electrode active material (Claim 11 discloses the first lithium nickel complex oxide is present at about 75-99.99 wt.%) and has a first median particle size D50A of between 3 µm and 15 µm (Claim 1 discloses the first lithium nickel complex oxide has a particle volume distribution, D50, of 5-20 µm.),
wherein the second lithium transition metal oxide powder constitutes a second weight fraction φB of the positive electrode active material (Claim 11 discloses the second lithium nickel complex oxide is present at about 0.01-25 wt.%.) and has a second median particle size D50B of between 0.5 µm and 3 µm, as determined by laser diffraction particle size analysis (Claim 1 discloses the second lithium nickel complex oxide has a particle volume distribution, D50, of 1-10 µm.),
wherein the second weight fraction φB is between 5 wt.% and 40 wt.% (Claim 11 discloses the second lithium nickel complex oxide is present at about 0.01-25 wt.%.).
However, Kim et al. do not teach wherein the first and second lithium nickel complex powders are both single-crystalline powders.
Sugie et al. teach a lithium composite metallic oxide used for a positive electrode in a lithium-ion secondary battery (Paragraph 0188). Further, the lithium composite metallic oxide can comprise a first composition portion and a second composition portion both comprising lithium, Ni, Co, Mn, Al, Mg, and Ti (Paragraph 0053). Moreover, the first-composition portion and second-composition portion are also allowed to form an active-material primary particle serving as a single crystalline structural body (Paragraph 0054). Further, both compositions are presumed to be single crystal (Paragraph 0171).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kim with Sugie in order to improve Li storage capacity.
However, neither Kim nor Sugie et al. teach particle sizes of the lithium transition metal oxides are determined by laser diffraction particle size analysis.
Kim ‘350 teach a bimodal lithium transition metal oxide powder mixture for a rechargeable battery wherein the first and second lithium transition metal oxide powder comprises Li, Ni, Mn, and Al (Abstract). Further, the particle size distribution using particle sizes D50 is determined my laser diffraction (Page 3, paragraph 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kim and Sugie with Kim ‘350 in order to quantify the relative volume percentage of the particles according to their size.
Regarding claims 21 and 22, the combination of Kim, Sugie, and Kim ‘350 et al. teach the positive electrode active material according to claim 18. Further, Kim et al. teach wherein a ratio of the first median particle size D50A to the second median particle size D50B is between 2 and 20 (Claim 1 discloses the first lithium nickel complex oxide has a particle volume distribution, D50, of 5-20 µm and the second lithium nickel complex oxide has a particle volume distribution, D50, of 1-10 µm. Therefore, a ratio between the first and second lithium nickel complex oxide can be 0.5 to 20.).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Kim, Sugie, and Kim ‘350 et al. teach the positive electrode active material according to claim 18. Further, Kim et al. teach wherein said positive electrode active material has a pressed density of at least 3.50 g/cm3 (Claim 12 discloses a press density of 3.2-4 g/cm3.)
However, Kim et al. do not teach wherein the press density is determined after applying a uniaxial pressure of 207 MPa for 30 seconds.
This is merely a product-by-process limitation. MPEP 2113 I. PRODUCT-BY-PROCESS CLAIMS ARE NOT LIMITED TO THE MANIPULATIONS OF THE RECITED STEPS, ONLY THE STRUCTURE IMPLIED BY THE STEPS
"[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Kim, Sugie, and Kim ‘350 et al. teach the positive electrode active material according to claim 18. Further, Kim et al. teach wherein said first lithium transition metal oxide powder comprises Li, a metal MA', and oxygen, wherein MA' has a general formula Ni1-xa-ya-zaMnxaCoyaA'za with 0.00≤xa ≤0.30, 0.01≤ya ≤0.20, and 0.00≤za≤ 0.01, wherein A' comprises one or more elements selected from: Mn, B, Ba, Sr, Mg, Al, Nb, Ti, W, F, and Zr (Claim 10 discloses LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 wherein MA= Ni0.6Co0.2Mn0.2 and xa=ya=0.2 and za=0.).
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Kim, Sugie, and Kim ‘350 et al. teach the positive electrode active material according to claim 18. Further, Kim et al. teach wherein said first lithium transition metal oxide powder comprises Li, a metal MA', and oxygen, wherein MA' has a general formula Ni1-xb-yb-zbMnxbCoybA’'zb with 0.00≤xb≤0.30, 0.01≤yb≤0.20, and 0.00≤zb≤ 0.01, wherein A' comprises one or more elements selected from: Mn, B, Ba, Sr, Mg, Al, Nb, Ti, W, F, and Zr (Claim 10 discloses LiNi0.5Co0.2Mn0.3O2 wherein MA= Ni0.5Co0.2Mn0.3 and xa=0.3; ya=0.2 and za=0.).
Regarding claims 30-32, Kim et al. teach a method for manufacturing a positive electrode active material wherein the method comprises a step of mixing a first lithium transition metal oxide powder having a volume-based particle size distribution with a first median particle size D50Aof between 3 µm and 15 µm with a second lithium transition metal oxide powder having a volume-based particle size distribution with a second median particle size D50B of between 0.5 µm and 3 µm (Example 1; paragraph 0090 disclose mixing first and second lithium nickel metal oxide powders synthesized in paragraphs 73-74 and 82, respectively. Claim 1 discloses the first lithium nickel complex oxide has a particle volume distribution, D50, of 5-20 µm and the second lithium nickel complex oxide has a particle volume distribution, D50, of 1-10 µm.),
wherein the first lithium transition metal oxide powder constitutes a first weight fraction φA of the positive electrode active material (Claim 11 discloses the first lithium nickel complex oxide is present at about 75-99.99 wt.%), whereby a weight fraction φB of said second lithium transition metal oxide powder with respect to the total weight of said positive electrode active material is between 5 wt.% and 40 wt.% (Claim 11 discloses the second lithium nickel complex oxide is present at about 0.01-25 wt.%.).
However, Kim et al. do not teach wherein the first and second lithium nickel complex powders are both single-crystalline powders.
Sugie et al. teach a lithium composite metallic oxide used for a positive electrode in a lithium-ion secondary battery (Paragraph 0188). Further, the lithium composite metallic oxide can comprise a first composition portion and a second composition portion both comprising lithium, Ni, Co, Mn, Al, Mg, and Ti (Paragraph 0053). Moreover, the first-composition portion and second-composition portion are also allowed to form an active-material primary particle serving as a single crystalline structural body (Paragraph 0054).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kim with Sugie in order to improve Li storage capacity.
However, neither Kim nor Sugie et al. teach particle sizes of the lithium transition metal oxides are determined by laser diffraction particle size analysis.
Kim ‘350 teach a bimodal lithium transition metal oxide powder mixture for a rechargeable battery wherein the first and second lithium transition metal oxide powder comprises Li, Ni, Mn, and Al (Abstract). Further, the particle size distribution using particle sizes D50 is determined my laser diffraction (Page 3, paragraph 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kim and Sugie with Kim ‘350 in order to quantify the relative volume percentage of the particles according to their size.
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 DANIEL S GATEWOOD whose telephone number is (571)270-7958. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:30.
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, Ula Tavares-Crockett can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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.
Daniel S. Gatewood, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1729
/DANIEL S GATEWOOD, Ph. D/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729 March 25th, 2026