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 of Group I, claim(s) 1–5 and 10, in the reply filed on 04/01/26 is acknowledged. Claim(s) 6–9 is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse.
Claim Objections
It is recommended that Applicant amend the claims as follows:
In claim 3, the period at the end of line 3 (after “below”) should be moved to the end of the claim (line 6) and replaced with a colon for proper grammar.
In claim 4, lines 3 and 4, “the most surface of the lithium nickel compound particle” should read “the outermost surface of the lithium nickel compound particle” or “the uppermost surface of the lithium nickel compound particle” for clearer syntax (and as clearly intended in fig. 1 and p. 6).
In claim 10, lines 4 and 5, “negative electrode; and non-aqueous electrolyte” should read “a negative electrode; and a non-aqueous electrolyte” for proper grammar.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 3–5 is/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 3 recites “the lithium nickel-based compound particle is represented by Chemical Formula 1 … [where] a is 0.95 ≤ a ≤ 1.15, x is 0.75 ≤ x ≤ 0.98, y is 0 < y < 02., z is 0 < z < 0.2, and y+z≤0.25” in lines 2–6. The formula allows Al to be omitted (e.g., if x = 0.75, and y = z = 0.125, such would yield x + y + z = 1, making Al content 0), whereas claim 1 implicitly requires a non-zero Al content, making the Al concentration unclear.
Pp. 6 and 7 describe the instant Chemical Formula 1 and that x + y + z may range from 0.98 to 0.999 so that Al content is 0.1–2 mol%. However, this section is exemplary (see “In one embodiment”) and, thus, non-controlling to the claimed formula. Nonetheless, under broadest reasonable interpretation—and the sake of compact prosecution—for this Office Action claim 3 will be interpreted to require values satisfying Chemical Formula 1, provided that Al is present at a non-zero concentration (i.e., 0 < 1–(x + y + z)), as appears intended by pp. 6 and 7 and required by claim 1.
Claim 4 recites “the surface portion is an area corresponding to a length of less than 30% of the lithium nickel compound particle average radius in the depth direction from the most surface” in lines 2–4. Although parent claim 1’s “surface” appears to have inherent antecedent basis given the spec.’s envisaged spherical particle (e.g., fig. 1), it is unclear if claim 4’s “the most surface” is referencing claim 1’s “surface” or only a region/portion within “the surface”.
Pp. 5 and 6 specially define the surface portion as “an area corresponding to a depth of 30% or less of the lithium nickel compound particle average radius in a depth direction from the uppermost surface”, which is relative to fig. 1’s particle. Despite this definition, however, it remains unclear whether “the [upper]most surface” is meant to further limit “the surface” from claim 1 or introduce a new region within “the surface”. Based on the definition and fig. 1, however—and particularly as the spec. envisages a spherical particle—for this Office Action claim 4 will be interpreted to require that “the uppermost surface” further limits claim 1’s “surface” such that the “surface portion” will mean a depth ≤ 30% from “the uppermost surface”.
Dependent claim 5 fails to correct at least claim 3’s first deficiency and is rejected likewise. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Huang et al. (WO 2021190559 A1, with EFD 03/27/20; citation to English equivalent US 20220250938 A1) (Huang).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Huang discloses a lithium secondary battery (Title, exs.), comprising a positive electrode; a negative electrode; and a non-aqueous electrolyte (e.g., ¶ 0161), the positive electrode comprising a positive electrode active material comprising a lithium nickel-based compound particle having a Ni content of 85 mol% (Li1.08Ni0.88Co0.09Al0.03Al0.03O2 particle (where 85% is based on moles of transition metals, as in spec.’s exs.), Ex. 5, ¶ 0136), satisfying 75 mol% or more, wherein, a difference in Al concentration between the center and surface of the lithium nickel-based compound particle is 0% (see 1.0 molar ratio of aluminum (M) in interior versus surface in Table 1, Ex. 5), falling within less than 1 mol%.
Regarding claim 2, Huang discloses the positive electrode active material of claim 1, wherein an average particle diameter D50 of the lithium nickel-based compound particle is 11.4 μm (see average size, i.e., D50, in ¶ 0136), falling within 10–20 μm.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by or, alternatively, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kim et al. (US 9029017 B2, from 01/29/25 IDS) (Kim).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Kim discloses a lithium secondary battery (Title, exs.), comprising a positive electrode; a negative electrode; and a non-aqueous electrolyte (e.g., col. 11, lines 60–67, and col. 12, lines 24–29), the positive electrode comprising a positive electrode active material comprising a lithium nickel-based compound particle having a Ni content of 80 mol% (LiNi0.80Co0.15Al0.05O2 particle (where 80% is based on moles of transition metals, as in spec.’s exs.), Prep. Ex. 1, col. 11, line 29, and col. 13, lines 44–50), satisfying 75 mol% or more, wherein, a difference in Al concentration between the center and surface of the lithium nickel-based compound particle is ~ 0.4% (see standard deviation of Al compositional variation throughout particle of 0.4% in Prep. Ex. 1 in Table 2), which appears to satisfy a concentration difference between center and surface of < 1 mol%.
Assuming, arguendo, that Kim’s disclosure failed to necessarily satisfy a concentration difference ≤ 1 mol%, Kim discloses that the compositional variation of Al may be ≤ 1%, preferably 0.3~0.4% (col. 5, lines 41–47), because such small variation improves lifespan characteristics (col. 15, lines 23–30). Considering that Kim is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely Al-doped lithium Ni oxides, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrive at < 1 mol% difference by minimizing the difference in Al content between surface and center to improve lifespan characteristics (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding claim 2, Kim discloses the positive electrode active material of claim 1, wherein an average particle diameter D50 of the lithium nickel-based compound particle is 12.3 μm (Prep. Ex. 1, Table 1), falling within 10–20 μm.
Regarding claim 4, Kim discloses the positive electrode active material of claim 1.
Although silent to the specific depth of the center and surface portions, given that Kim’s compositional-variation analysis applies throughout the particle (see EDS mapping of col. 13, lines 44–50), the variation of ~ 0.4% would reasonably satisfy the surface-depth requirement regardless of the recited length and, thus, satisfy that the surface portion is an area corresponding to a length of less than 30% of the lithium nickel compound particle average radius in the depth direction from the uppermost surface of the lithium nickel compound particle.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 9029017 B2, from 01/29/25 IDS) (Kim), as applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Kim discloses the positive electrode active material of claim 1.
As discussed above, Kim further exemplifies LiNi0.80Co0.15Al0.05O2 in Prep. Ex. 1 but more generally discloses utility with other oxides like LiNi0.9Co0.05Mn0.025Al0.025O2 (col. 5, lines 15–17). This material would satisfy Chemical Formula 1, where a = 1, x = 0.9, y = 0.05, z = 0.025, and y + z = 0.075 ≤ 0.25.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to routinely employ LiNi0.9Co0.05Mn0.025Al0.025O2 as Kim’s Li Ni oxide active material with the reasonable expectation of achieving a successful active material.
Regarding claim 5, Kim discloses the positive electrode active material of claim 3.
Based on the above substitution, Kim’s material’s x + y + z = 0.975, which is so close to the instant 0.98–0.999 that the skilled artisan would have expected substantially similar performance from each material, absent demonstrated criticality (MPEP 2144.05 (I)). Specifically, Applicant never includes comparative examples isolating poorer performance to x + y + z slightly below 0.98 to 0.999 (i.e., does not compare against closest prior art) because all comparative examples either omit Al or test difference in Al concentration between center and surface above 1 mol%, and Kim also appears to omit such a comparison. Thus, Kim’s 0.975 is considered an obvious variant of the instant 0.98–0.999.
Alternatively, Kim discloses general formula LiNi1–x–y–zCoxMyMnzO2, where x may be 0–0.5, y may be 0.01–0.2, and z may be 0–0.5 (col. 5, lines 5–9). Such allows a formula with x + y + z overlapping the instant 0.98–0.999 (e.g., if x were 0.05 and z were 0.03 (and Ni content remained 0.9), such would yield x + y + z = 0.98). It would have been obvious to routinely select within the overlap with a reasonable expectation of forming a successful active material with suitable contents of each metal (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Alternative Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 9029017 B2, from 01/29/25 IDS) (Kim), as applied to claim 1, in view of Huang et al. (WO 2021190559 A1, with EFD 03/27/20; citation to English equivalent US 20220250938 A1) (Huang).
NOTE: the following is an alternative rejection further rendering obvious the surface portion’s length of ≤ 30%.
Regarding claim 4, Kim discloses the positive electrode active material of claim 1 but, arguendo, fails to disclose that the surface portion is an area corresponding to a length of less than 30% of the lithium nickel compound particle average radius in the depth direction from the most surface of the lithium nickel compound particle.
Huang teaches a cathode material with a dopant element M (such as Al, ¶ 0012) distributed in the interior and on the surface, where the molar ratio of M in the interior relative to the surface is ≥ 0.5 and may be 1.0 (Abstract, exs. in Table 1). Huang teaches that when there is insufficient M element in the interior, severe Li/Ni cation mixing occurs and degrades the material’s structural and thermal stability, whereas excess M on the surface increases surface impedance and hinders Li+ diffusion (¶ 0055).
Huang is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely doped lithium nickel oxides.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention’s effective filing date, to control the surface versus center depths and, thus, routinely arrive at the surface portion’s being an area corresponding to a length of less than 30% of the lithium nickel compound particle average radius in the depth direction from the uppermost surface of the lithium nickel compound particle to ensure sufficient dopant content in both the center and surface to preserve thermal and structural stability without increasing surface impedance and hindering Li+ diffusion, as taught by Huang.
Conclusion
The cited art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
CN 111697235 A: lithium Ni-based oxide coated with Mg and exhibiting unchanged ratio of Al between core and shell.
US 20110033750 A1 (from 01/29/25 IDS), US 20130330626 A1, US 20140377660 A1, US 20180013145, US 20180215629 A1, US 20220411283 A1, and US 20220384792 A1 all also disclose Al distributed uniformly from core to surface in lithium nickel-based oxide.
US 20020110518 A1: Al-doped lithium Ni-based oxide, where concentration of Al on surface may be substantially equal to the concentration of Al in the oxide’s average composition.
WO 2021094736 A1: ≥ 1 at% difference in Al concentration between center and core of lithium Ni-based oxide. US 20230197948 A1 is similar with 1.01–20 molar ratio between shell and core.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN S MEDLEY whose telephone number is (703)756-4600. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00–5:00 EST M–Th and 8:00–12:00 EST F.
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, Jonathan Leong, can be reached on 571-270-192. 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.
/J.S.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/Haroon S. Sheikh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
Prosecution Insights