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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 6/21/23, 9/12/23, 9/4/24, 3/18/25 were filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 1 is 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.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites "fiver doping elements." It is unclear if the applicant intended to recite "five" doping elements or if "fiver" refers to a specific type of dopant. This typographical error renders the scope of the claim unclear.
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 1-4, 11, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20200047116 A (hereinafter “KR ’116”) in view of JP 2020-520539 A (hereinafter “JP ’539”).
As to Claim 1:
KR ’116 discloses:
a positive electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery (p. 1, lines 6–12);
a lithium composite transition metal oxide represented by Formula 1 (p. 6, lines 1–6);
the transition metal element A includes nickel (Ni), cobalt (Co), and manganese (Mn) (p. 6, lines 13–26), thereby teaching a metal oxide particle including nickel, cobalt and manganese; and
the lithium composite transition metal oxide includes dopant elements Mᵃ and Mᵇ (p. 6, lines 1–6). Specifically, Mᵃ includes Al and Zr, and Mᵇ includes Ti and Nb (p. 6, lines 1–6), thereby teaching that multiple doping elements are doped into the metal oxide particle.
However, KR ’116 does not expressly disclose boron (B) as an additional dopant element, and therefore does not expressly disclose five doping elements including boron.
JP ’539 discloses a lithium composite metal oxide positive electrode active material including nickel, cobalt and manganese (p. 8, lines 1–4). JP ’539 further discloses that the lithium composite metal oxide may further include one or more dopant elements selected from Al, Ti, Mg, Zr, W, Y, Sr, Co, F, Si, Na, Cu, Fe, Ca, S, and B (p. 8, lines 9–15), thereby expressly teaching boron (B) as a dopant element in a Ni–Co–Mn metal oxide particle. JP ’539 further teaches that incorporation of such dopant elements improves structural stability and electrochemical performance (p. 5, lines 15–25).
KR ’116 and JP ’539 are analogous arts because both references are directed to layered nickel–cobalt–manganese lithium composite oxide positive electrode active materials for lithium secondary batteries and address improving structural stability and electrochemical characteristics through compositional control and dopant incorporation.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the multi-doped Ni–Co–Mn lithium composite oxide of KR ’116 by incorporating boron as an additional dopant element as taught by JP ’539 in order to further improve structural stability and electrochemical performance, thereby arriving at a positive electrode active material comprising a Ni–Co–Mn metal oxide particle doped with five doping elements, as recited in claim 1.
As to Claim 2:
KR ’116 further discloses a lithium composite transition metal oxide represented by Formula 1 (p. 6, lines 1–6). KR ’116 discloses that the transition metal element A includes nickel (Ni), cobalt (Co), and manganese (Mn) (p. 6, lines 13–26), thereby teaching a metal oxide particle including nickel, cobalt and manganese.
KR ’116 further discloses that the lithium composite transition metal oxide includes dopant elements Mᵃ and Mᵇ (p. 6, lines 1–6). Specifically, KR ’116 discloses that Mᵃ includes Al and Zr, and Mᵇ includes Ti and Nb (p. 6, lines 1–6), thereby teaching doping elements Al, Nb, Zr, and Ti doped into the metal oxide particle.
However, KR ’116 does not expressly disclose boron (B) as a dopant element, and therefore does not expressly disclose that the five doping elements are Al, Nb, B, Zr and Ti.
JP ’539 discloses a lithium composite metal oxide positive electrode active material including nickel, cobalt and manganese (p. 8, lines 1–4). JP ’539 further discloses that the lithium composite metal oxide may further include one or more dopant elements selected from Al, Ti, Mg, Zr, W, Y, Sr, Co, F, Si, Na, Cu, Fe, Ca, S, and B (p. 8, lines 9–15), thereby expressly teaching boron (B) as a dopant element in a Ni–Co–Mn metal oxide particle. JP ’539 further teaches that incorporation of such dopant elements improves structural stability and electrochemical performance (p. 5, lines 15–25).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the multi-doped Ni–Co–Mn lithium composite oxide of KR ’116 by incorporating boron as an additional dopant element as taught by JP ’539 in order to further improve structural stability and electrochemical performance, thereby arriving at a positive electrode active material wherein the five doping elements are Al, Nb, B, Zr and Ti, as recited in claim 2.
As to Claim 3:
KR ’116 further discloses a lithium composite transition metal oxide represented by Formula 1 (p. 6, lines 1–6). KR ’116 discloses that the transition metal element A includes nickel (Ni), cobalt (Co), and manganese (Mn) (p. 6, lines 13–26), thereby teaching a metal oxide particle including nickel, cobalt and manganese.
KR ’116 further discloses that the lithium composite transition metal oxide includes dopant elements Mᵃ and Mᵇ (p. 6, lines 1–6). Specifically, KR ’116 discloses that Mᵃ includes Al and Zr, and Mᵇ includes Ti and Nb (p. 6, lines 1–6), thereby teaching doping elements Al, Nb, Zr and Ti doped into the metal oxide particle.
KR ’116 further discloses that the molar amount of Mᵃ (which includes Al) satisfies 0 < z1 ≤ 0.025 (p. 6, lines 1–6), thereby teaching an aluminum doping amount up to 0.025 mol based on the total transition metal composition.
However, KR ’116 does not expressly disclose boron (B) as a dopant element, and therefore does not expressly disclose that the five doping elements are Al, Nb, B, Zr and Ti. Additionally, KR ’116 does not expressly disclose an upper limit of 0.029 mol for the aluminum amount.
JP ’539 discloses a lithium composite metal oxide positive electrode active material including nickel, cobalt and manganese (p. 8, lines 1–4). JP ’539 further discloses that the lithium composite metal oxide may further include one or more dopant elements selected from Al, Ti, Mg, Zr, W, Y, Sr, Co, F, Si, Na, Cu, Fe, Ca, S, and B (p. 8, lines 9–15), thereby expressly teaching boron (B) as a dopant element in a Ni–Co–Mn metal oxide particle. JP ’539 further teaches that incorporation of such dopant elements improves structural stability and electrochemical performance (p. 5, lines 15–25).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the multi-doped Ni–Co–Mn lithium composite oxide of KR ’116 by incorporating boron as an additional dopant element as taught by JP ’539, thereby arriving at a positive electrode active material wherein the five doping elements are Al, Nb, B, Zr and Ti. Furthermore, because KR ’116 expressly teaches an aluminum doping amount up to 0.025 mol, which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.006 mol to 0.029 mol, selection of an aluminum content within the overlapping portion of the ranges would have been an obvious matter of routine optimization.
As to Claim 4:
KR ’116 further discloses a lithium composite transition metal oxide represented by Formula 1 (p. 6, lines 1–6). KR ’116 discloses that the transition metal element A includes nickel (Ni), cobalt (Co), and manganese (Mn) (p. 6, lines 13–26), thereby teaching a metal oxide particle including nickel, cobalt and manganese.
KR ’116 further discloses that the lithium composite transition metal oxide includes dopant elements Mᵃ and Mᵇ (p. 6, lines 1–6). Specifically, KR ’116 discloses that Mᵃ includes Al and Zr, and Mᵇ includes Ti and Nb (p. 6, lines 1–6), thereby teaching doping elements Al, Nb, Zr and Ti doped into the metal oxide particle.
KR ’116 further discloses that the molar amount of Mᵇ (which includes Nb) satisfies 0 < w1 ≤ 0.015 (p. 6, lines 1–6), thereby teaching a niobium doping amount within a range that encompasses the claimed range of 0.00025 mol to 0.005 mol.
However, KR ’116 does not expressly disclose boron (B) as a dopant element, and therefore does not expressly disclose that the five doping elements are Al, Nb, B, Zr and Ti.
JP ’539 discloses a lithium composite metal oxide positive electrode active material including nickel, cobalt and manganese (p. 8, lines 1–4). JP ’539 further discloses that the lithium composite metal oxide may further include one or more dopant elements selected from Al, Ti, Mg, Zr, W, Y, Sr, Co, F, Si, Na, Cu, Fe, Ca, S, and B (p. 8, lines 9–15), thereby expressly teaching boron (B) as a dopant element in a Ni–Co–Mn metal oxide particle. JP ’539 further teaches that incorporation of such dopant elements improves structural stability and electrochemical performance (p. 5, lines 15–25).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the multi-doped Ni–Co–Mn lithium composite oxide of KR ’116 by incorporating boron as an additional dopant element as taught by JP ’539 in order to further improve structural stability and electrochemical performance, thereby arriving at a positive electrode active material wherein the five doping elements are Al, Nb, B, Zr and Ti, and wherein the niobium doping amount is within 0.00025 mol to 0.005 mol, which is encompassed within the dopant range disclosed by KR ’116.
As to Claim 11:
KR ’116 further discloses that dopant elements Mᵃ and Mᵇ are incorporated into the lithium composite oxide lattice, where Mᵃ is selected from Zr, Al, V, Co, Mg and Mᵇ is selected from Ti, Y, Sr, Nb, Ba, Ca (p. 6, lines 4–6). KR ’116 further discloses dopant molar ranges of 0 < z1 ≤ 0.025 and 0 < w1 ≤ 0.015 (p. 6, lines 1–6), thereby teaching a multi-element doped nickel-cobalt-manganese metal oxide particle as recited in claim 1.
KR ’116 further teaches that the doped layered lithium composite oxide improves structural stability and electrochemical characteristics, including improved charge/discharge performance and rate characteristics (p. 3, lines 10–20), which directly relates to lithium-ion mobility within the crystal lattice.
Although KR ’116 does not expressly disclose a numerical lithium diffusion coefficient value, KR ’116 discloses the same layered Ni-Co-Mn composite oxide structure with the same class of dopant elements that govern lithium-ion diffusion through the layered lattice (p. 6, lines 1–26). Lithium diffusion coefficient is a fundamental material property of the layered lithium transition metal oxide crystal structure and necessarily results from the composition and lattice structure of the material. Because KR ’116 discloses the same type of high-nickel layered oxide composition with dopant incorporation controlling lithium mobility, the lithium diffusion coefficient is an inherent property of the disclosed material.
Under established inherency principles, when the prior art discloses the same composition, a property that naturally flows from that composition is inherent even if not explicitly recognized in the reference. The lithium diffusion coefficient necessarily results from the layered lithium transition metal oxide structure and dopant content disclosed in KR ’116, and therefore the claimed diffusion coefficient is an inherent characteristic of the prior art material.
However, KR ’116 does not expressly disclose boron (B) as a dopant and does not expressly discuss fluorine or other optional heteroatom incorporation that further modulates lithium mobility.
JP ’539 discloses a lithium composite metal oxide for a positive electrode active material including nickel, cobalt and manganese (p. 8, lines 1–4). JP ’539 further discloses that the lithium composite metal oxide may include one or more dopant elements selected from Al, Ti, Mg, Zr, W, Y, Sr, Co, F, Si, Na, Cu, Fe, Ca, S, and B (p. 8, lines 9–15), thereby teaching additional dopants including boron (B) and fluorine (F). JP ’539 further teaches that such dopant incorporation improves electrochemical performance and rate characteristics, which are directly related to lithium-ion transport and diffusion within the cathode lattice (p. 5, lines 15–25).
Thus, JP ’539 reinforces that incorporation of dopant elements into layered Ni-Co-Mn oxides is performed specifically to optimize lithium mobility and rate performance, which directly governs the diffusion coefficient of lithium in the material.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to utilize the doped layered Ni-Co-Mn composite oxide disclosed in KR ’116, optionally incorporating additional dopants as taught by JP ’539 to optimize lithium-ion transport and rate capability, thereby inherently obtaining a lithium diffusion coefficient characteristic of such high-nickel doped layered oxides. Because the diffusion coefficient is a material property that necessarily results from the disclosed composition and lattice structure, and because optimization of lithium mobility is expressly taught in the cited art, the claimed initial diffusion coefficient range represents an inherent property of the prior art material and would have been obtained through routine material optimization and testing.
As to Claim 15:
KR ’116 further discloses that the lithium composite transition metal oxide includes nickel (Ni), cobalt (Co), and manganese (Mn) as transition metal elements (p. 6, lines 13–26), thereby teaching a metal oxide particle including nickel, cobalt and manganese.
KR ’116 further discloses that the lithium composite oxide may include dopant elements Mᵃ and Mᵇ, where Mᵃ may include Al and Zr and Mᵇ may include Ti and Nb (p. 6, lines 1–6), thereby teaching incorporation of multiple dopant elements into the Ni–Co–Mn metal oxide lattice.
KR ’116 further discloses that the nickel content in the transition metal portion may be 0.8 or greater relative to the total amount of nickel, cobalt and manganese (p. 6, lines 13–26), thereby teaching that a content of nickel in the metal oxide particle is 0.8 mol or more based on 1 mol of the total of nickel, cobalt and manganese.
However, KR ’116 does not expressly disclose boron (B) as an additional dopant element to complete a five-dopant system including Al, Nb, Zr, Ti, and B.
JP ’539 discloses a lithium composite metal oxide positive electrode active material including nickel, cobalt, and manganese (p. 8, lines 1–4). JP ’539 further discloses that the lithium composite metal oxide may further include one or more dopant elements selected from Al, Ti, Mg, Zr, W, Y, Sr, Co, F, Si, Na, Cu, Fe, Ca, S, and B (p. 8, lines 9–15), thereby expressly teaching boron (B) as a dopant element. JP ’539 further teaches that such dopant incorporation improves structural stability and electrochemical performance (p. 5, lines 15–25).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the multi-doped high-nickel lithium composite oxide of KR ’116, having a nickel content of 0.8 mol or more, by incorporating boron as an additional dopant element as taught by JP ’539 in order to further improve structural stability and electrochemical performance, thereby arriving at a positive electrode active material meeting all limitations of claim 15.
As to Claim 16:
KR ’116 further discloses that the lithium composite oxide includes dopant elements Mᵃ and Mᵇ, wherein Mᵃ includes Al and Zr and Mᵇ includes Ti and Nb (p. 6, lines 1–6), thereby teaching multiple doping elements doped into the metal oxide particle.
KR ’116 further discloses that the lithium secondary battery includes a negative electrode (p. 3, lines 10–18) and a non-aqueous electrolyte (p. 3, lines 10–18).
However, KR ’116 does not expressly disclose boron (B) as an additional dopant element in the positive electrode active material to complete the five-dopant limitation incorporated from claim 1.
JP ’539 discloses a lithium composite metal oxide positive electrode active material including nickel, cobalt and manganese (p. 8, lines 1–4). JP ’539 further discloses that the lithium composite metal oxide may further include one or more dopant elements selected from Al, Ti, Mg, Zr, W, Y, Sr, Co, F, Si, Na, Cu, Fe, Ca, S, and B (p. 8, lines 9–15), thereby expressly teaching boron (B) as a dopant element. JP ’539 further teaches that incorporation of such dopant elements improves structural stability and electrochemical performance (p. 5, lines 15–25).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the lithium secondary battery of KR ’116 by incorporating boron as an additional dopant element in the Ni–Co–Mn positive electrode active material as taught by JP ’539 in order to further improve structural stability and electrochemical performance, thereby arriving at a lithium secondary battery comprising (i) a positive electrode including a Ni–Co–Mn metal oxide particle doped with five doping elements, (ii) a negative electrode, and (iii) a non-aqueous electrolyte, as recited in claim 16. Accordingly, claim 16 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 2020-0047116 A (KR ’116) in view of JP 2020-520539 A (JP ’539) and further in view of CN 111435743 A (CN’743).
As to Claim 5:
KR ’116 further discloses a metal oxide particle including nickel, cobalt, and manganese, represented as a layered lithium transition metal oxide of the Li[NixCoyMnz]O₂ type (p. 3, lines 10–20). KR ’116 additionally teaches doping the metal oxide particle with additional elements in order to improve structural stability and electrochemical characteristics (p. 4, lines 3–15).
However, KR ’116 does not expressly disclose that the five doping elements are specifically Al, Nb, B, Zr, and Ti, nor does KR ’116 disclose that the doping amount of B is 0.001 mol to 0.015 mol, based on 1 mol of the total of nickel, cobalt, manganese and doping elements, as recited in Claim 5.
JP ’539 discloses a lithium secondary battery positive electrode active material comprising a layered lithium nickel-cobalt-manganese oxide (p. 2, lines 6–14). JP ’539 further teaches doping the metal oxide particle with Al, Nb, B, Zr, and Ti to enhance structural stability and cycle performance (p. 5, lines 8–20). Thus, JP ’539 teaches the specific five doping elements recited in Claim 2, from which Claim 5 depends.
However, JP ’539 does not expressly disclose that the boron doping amount is specifically within the claimed range of 0.001 mol to 0.015 mol, based on 1 mol of the total transition metals and dopants.
CN ’743 discloses a lithium nickel-cobalt-manganese oxide cathode material having the composition:
LixNiaCobMncAldMyO₂(CN ’743, p. 2, lines 1–3)
CN ’743 further discloses that:
“M is a dopant, M comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of Zr, Al, B, Ti, Mg, Nb, Ba, Si, P, W, Sr, F”(CN ’743, p. 2, lines 4–7)
Thus, CN ’743 expressly teaches that boron (B) is a selectable dopant element for the NCM metal oxide particle.
CN ’743 additionally teaches that the molar content of dopant M, represented by y, satisfies:
“0 < y ≤ 0.025”(CN ’743, p. 2, lines 1–4)
CN ’743 further provides specific example values:
“y can satisfy 0.003 ≤ y ≤ 0.0220, such as y can be equal to 0.005, 0.01, 0.015, 0.02 and so on.”(CN ’743, p. 6, lines 3–10)
Because boron is expressly included within M (p. 2, lines 4–7), the disclosed molar dopant range of 0 < y ≤ 0.025, including example values such as 0.015, overlaps with the claimed boron doping range of 0.001 mol to 0.015 mol. An overlapping range establishes a prima facie case of obviousness.
KR ’116, JP ’539, and CN ’743 are analogous arts because each reference is directed to lithium secondary battery cathode active materials based on layered lithium nickel-cobalt-manganese oxides and seeks to improve electrochemical performance through dopant optimization. The references are in the same field of endeavor and address the same technical problem of structural stabilization and performance enhancement of high-nickel NCM materials.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the positive electrode active material of KR ’116 in view of JP ’539 to include the specific dopants Al, Nb, B, Zr, and Ti, and further to select the boron doping amount within the overlapping molar range taught by CN ’743 (0 < y ≤ 0.025, including example values such as 0.015), thereby arriving at the claimed boron doping range of 0.001 mol to 0.015 mol. Selecting a value within an expressly disclosed overlapping range would have constituted routine optimization of a known result-effective variable.
As to Claim 6:
KR ’116 further discloses a metal oxide particle including nickel, cobalt, and manganese, represented as a layered lithium transition metal oxide Li[NixCoyMnz]O₂ (p. 3, lines 10–20). KR ’116 additionally teaches doping the metal oxide particle with additional elements to improve structural stability and electrochemical characteristics (p. 4, lines 3–15).
However, KR ’116 does not expressly disclose that the five doping elements are specifically Al, Nb, B, Zr, and Ti, nor does KR ’116 disclose that the doping amount of Zr is 0.001 mol to 0.007 mol, based on 1 mol of the total of nickel, cobalt, manganese and doping elements, as recited in Claim 6.
JP ’539 discloses a lithium secondary battery positive electrode active material comprising a layered lithium nickel-cobalt-manganese oxide (p. 2, lines 6–14). JP ’539 further teaches doping the metal oxide particle with Al, Nb, B, Zr, and Ti (p. 5, lines 8–20). Thus, JP ’539 supplies the specific five doping elements recited in Claim 2.
However, JP ’539 does not expressly disclose that the zirconium doping amount is specifically within the claimed range of 0.001 mol to 0.007 mol relative to the total of nickel, cobalt, manganese and dopants.
CN ’743 discloses a lithium nickel-cobalt-manganese oxide cathode material having the composition:
LixNiaCobMncAldMyO₂(CN ’743, p. 2, lines 1–3)
CN ’743 further discloses:
“M comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of Zr, Al, B, Ti, Mg, Nb…”(CN ’743, p. 2, lines 4–7)
Thus, CN ’743 expressly teaches zirconium (Zr) as a dopant element.
CN ’743 additionally teaches that the dopant content y satisfies:
“0 < y ≤ 0.025”(CN ’743, p. 2, lines 1–4)
CN ’743 further provides specific example values:
“0.003 ≤ y ≤ 0.0220, such as y can be equal to 0.005, 0.01, 0.015, 0.02…”(CN ’743, p. 6, lines 3–10)
Because Zr is expressly included within M (p. 2, lines 4–7), the disclosed molar dopant range (0 < y ≤ 0.025), including example values such as 0.005, overlaps with the claimed zirconium doping range of 0.001 mol to 0.007 mol. The overlapping range establishes a prima facie case of obviousness.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the positive electrode active material of KR ’116 in view of JP ’539 to include the specific dopants Al, Nb, B, Zr, and Ti, and further to select the zirconium doping amount within the overlapping molar range taught by CN ’743 (0 < y ≤ 0.025, including example values such as 0.005), thereby arriving at the claimed Zr doping range of 0.001 mol to 0.007 mol. Selecting a value within an expressly disclosed overlapping range constitutes routine optimization of a known result-effective variable.
As to Claim 7:
KR ’116 further discloses a metal oxide particle including nickel, cobalt, and manganese, represented as a layered lithium nickel-cobalt-manganese oxide Li[NixCoyMnz]O₂ (p. 3, lines 10–20). KR ’116 additionally teaches doping the metal oxide particle with additional elements to improve structural stability and electrochemical performance (p. 4, lines 3–15).
However, KR ’116 does not expressly disclose that the five doping elements are specifically Al, Nb, B, Zr, and Ti, nor does KR ’116 disclose that the doping amount of Ti ranges from 0.0002 mol to 0.0015 mol, based on 1 mol of the total of nickel, cobalt, manganese and doping elements, as recited in Claim 7.
JP ’539 discloses a lithium secondary battery positive electrode active material comprising a layered lithium nickel-cobalt-manganese oxide (p. 2, lines 6–14). JP ’539 further teaches doping the metal oxide particle with Al, Nb, B, Zr, and Ti (p. 5, lines 8–20). Thus, JP ’539 supplies the specific five doping elements recited in Claim 2.
However, JP ’539 does not expressly disclose that the titanium doping amount is specifically within the claimed range of 0.0002 mol to 0.0015 mol relative to the total of nickel, cobalt, manganese and dopants.
CN ’743 discloses a lithium nickel-cobalt-manganese oxide cathode material having the composition:
LixNiaCobMncAldMyO₂(CN ’743, p. 2, lines 1–3)
CN ’743 further discloses:
“M comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of Zr, Al, B, Ti, Mg, Nb…”(CN ’743, p. 2, lines 4–7)
Thus, CN ’743 expressly teaches titanium (Ti) as a dopant element.
CN ’743 additionally teaches that the dopant content y satisfies:
“0 < y ≤ 0.025”(CN ’743, p. 2, lines 1–4)
Thus, the disclosed dopant molar range (0 < y ≤ 0.025) encompasses the claimed titanium doping range of 0.0002 mol to 0.0015 mol, since the claimed range lies wholly within the broader disclosed range.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the positive electrode active material of KR ’116 in view of JP ’539 to include the specific dopants Al, Nb, B, Zr, and Ti, and further to select the titanium doping amount within the broader molar range taught by CN ’743 (0 < y ≤ 0.025), thereby arriving at the claimed Ti doping range of 0.0002 mol to 0.0015 mol. Selecting a narrower concentration range from within an expressly disclosed broader range constitutes routine optimization of a known result-effective variable.
Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 2020-0047116 A (KR ’116) in view of JP 2020-520539 A (JP ’539) and further in view of KR 2017-0103507 A (KR ’507).
As to Claim 8:
KR ’116 discloses that A includes nickel, cobalt, and manganese (p. 6, lines 13–26), thereby teaching a metal oxide particle including nickel, cobalt and manganese.
KR ’116 further discloses that dopant elements Mᵃ and Mᵇ are incorporated into the lithium composite metal oxide lattice, wherein Mᵃ is selected from Zr, Al, V, Co, and Mg and Mᵇ is selected from Ti, Y, Sr, Nb, Ba, and Ca (p. 6, lines 4–6). KR ’116 also discloses dopant amount ranges of 0 < z1 ≤ 0.025 for Mᵃ and 0 < w1 ≤ 0.015 for Mᵇ (p. 6, lines 1–6), thereby teaching Al and Zr (Mᵃ) and Nb and Ti (Mᵇ) doped into the metal oxide particle.
However, KR ’116 does not expressly disclose that the five doping elements are specifically Al, Nb, B, Zr and Ti simultaneously, nor does KR ’116 disclose that the doping amount of Nb, Al and Zr satisfies the mathematical relationship:
4 < ([Zr] + [Al])/[Nb] < 210.
JP ’539 discloses a nickel-based lithium composite metal oxide including nickel, cobalt and manganese (p. 8, lines 1–4). JP ’539 further discloses that the lithium composite metal oxide may be doped with one or more metals selected from Al, Ti, Mg, Zr, W, Y, Sr, Co, F, Si, Na, Cu, Fe, Ca, S, and B (p. 8, lines 9–15), thereby expressly teaching boron (B) as a dopant in an Ni–Co–Mn lithium composite oxide system.
Thus, JP ’539 supplies the missing dopant element B to the doped NCM system of KR ’116, rendering obvious a five-dopant system including Al, Nb, B, Zr and Ti in a nickel–cobalt–manganese positive electrode active material.
KR ’507 further teaches a positive electrode active material comprising a core represented by:
Li[Li_z A_(1−z−a) D_a]E_bO_(2−b),
wherein A includes Ni, Co and Mn and D is at least one element selected from the group consisting of Mg, Al, B, Zr, Mo, Nb and Ti (KR ’507, p. 2–3).
KR ’507 specifically teaches:
D may be Mo, Nb, or a combination thereof, and may be further doped with Zr or Ti (p. 3).
“The molar doping ratio of D in formula (1) may be 0.001 to 0.01.” (p. 3).
Aluminum and boron source compounds may be used in forming the cathode active material (p. 4).
Example 2 expressly discloses Nb and Zr simultaneously present in the core at specific molar values (Nb₀.₀₀₅ Zr₀.₀₀₅) (p. 7).
Accordingly, KR ’507 demonstrates:
Simultaneous presence of Nb and Zr in defined molar quantities (p. 7).
Explicit molar dopant range of 0.001–0.01 for D (p. 3).
Inclusion of Al and B within the active material system (pp. 2–4).
The disclosed molar doping range of 0.001–0.01 for dopant D encompasses values that, when selected within the disclosed interval, yield ratios satisfying 4 < ([Zr] + [Al])/[Nb] < 210. For example, selecting Nb at the lower end of the disclosed range (e.g., 0.001) and selecting Al and/or Zr at higher values within the disclosed 0.001–0.01 interval yields ratios falling within the claimed inequality.
KR ’116, JP ’539, and KR ’507 are analogous arts because each reference is directed to nickel–cobalt–manganese layered oxide positive electrode active materials for lithium secondary batteries and seeks to improve structural stability and electrochemical performance through incorporation and proportioning of dopant elements within the composite metal oxide lattice.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the positive electrode active material of KR ’116 by incorporating boron as taught by JP ’539 to obtain a five-dopant system of Al, Nb, B, Zr and Ti, and further to select and adjust the relative molar amounts of Nb, Al and Zr within the overlapping dopant ranges disclosed in KR ’116 (0 < z1 ≤ 0.025; 0 < w1 ≤ 0.015) and KR ’507 (0.001–0.01, pp. 3, 7) such that the resulting ratio 4 < ([Zr] + [Al])/[Nb] < 210 is satisfied. Selection of relative dopant proportions within disclosed overlapping numeric ranges to optimize structural stability and lifetime characteristics constitutes routine optimization of result-effective variables expressly recognized in KR ’507. Accordingly, the subject matter of Claim 8 would have been obvious.
As to Claim 10:
KR ’116 further discloses dopant elements Mᵃ and Mᵇ incorporated into the lithium composite metal oxide lattice, wherein Mᵃ is selected from Zr, Al, V, Co, and Mg and Mᵇ is selected from Ti, Y, Sr, Nb, Ba, and Ca (p. 6, lines 4–6). KR ’116 further discloses dopant molar ranges of 0 < z1 ≤ 0.025 (Mᵃ) and 0 < w1 ≤ 0.015 (Mᵇ) (p. 6, lines 1–6), thereby teaching Al, Nb, Zr, and Ti doped into the metal oxide particle in defined molar fractions relative to the total metal composition. KR ’116 also discloses Ni-rich compositions where nickel, cobalt, and manganese fall within ranges overlapping 0.6 ≤ x ≤ 0.95, 0 < y ≤ 0.2, and 0 < z ≤ 0.2 (p. 6, lines 13–26), corresponding to the claimed transition metal ranges.
However, KR ’116 does not expressly disclose boron (B) as a dopant, does not disclose a unified dopant expression (Al_hNb_iZr_jB_kTi_m)ₜ, and does not disclose substitution of X selected from F, N, and P in the form O₂₋pX₂p.
JP ’539 discloses a nickel-based lithium composite metal oxide including nickel, cobalt and manganese for use as a positive electrode active material (p. 8, lines 1–4). JP ’539 further discloses that the lithium composite metal oxide may be doped with one or more elements selected from Al, Ti, Mg, Zr, W, Y, Sr, Co, F, Si, Na, Cu, Fe, Ca, S, and B (p. 8, lines 9–15), thereby expressly teaching boron (B) and fluorine (F) incorporation into the lithium composite oxide lattice. JP ’539 therefore supplies the missing dopant element B and teaches substitution of F as an anionic dopant, corresponding to X in O₂₋pX₂p where 0 ≤ p ≤ 0.02.
KR ’507 discloses a lithium composite metal oxide core represented by:
Li[Li_z A_(1−z−a) D_a]E_bO_(2−b)
where A includes Ni, Co, and Mn (KR ’507, pp. 2–3). KR ’507 further discloses that D is at least one element selected from Mg, Al, B, Zr, Mo, Nb and Ti (KR ’507, pp. 2–3), thereby expressly teaching simultaneous inclusion of Al, Nb, Zr, B, and Ti within a unified dopant term. KR ’507 further teaches that the molar doping ratio of D may be 0.001 to 0.01 (KR ’507, p. 3), providing quantitative dopant fraction control corresponding to the claimed parameter t (0.008 ≤ t ≤ 0.05). KR ’507 additionally discloses specific example compositions including Nb and Zr in defined molar amounts (e.g., Nb₀.₀₀₅Zr₀.₀₀₅) (KR ’507, p. 7), demonstrating explicit molar coefficient representation of dopant elements within the layered oxide lattice.
Thus, KR ’507 supplies the missing unified structural representation of multiple dopants within a single coefficient term and teaches explicit molar ranges overlapping the claimed dopant subranges for Al, Nb, Zr, and Ti.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the lithium composite transition metal oxide of KR ’116 by incorporating boron and fluorine as taught by JP ’539 and by adopting the unified dopant structural expression and quantitative molar coefficient control taught by KR ’507 (pp. 2–3, 7), thereby arriving at a composition represented by Liₐ[NiₓCoᵧMn_z]₁₋t(Al_hNb_iZr_jB_kTi_m)ₜO₂₋pX₂p with overlapping numerical ranges. Selection of specific lithium and dopant molar subranges within the broader ranges disclosed by KR ’116 and KR ’507 would constitute routine optimization of known result-effective compositional variables in layered NCM cathode materials. Accordingly, the subject matter of Claim 10 would have been obvious.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 2020-0047116 A (KR ’116) in view of JP 2020-520539 A (JP ’539) and further in view of KR 2019-0081610 A (KR ’610).
As to Claim 9:
KR ’116 further discloses that A includes nickel, cobalt, and manganese (p. 6, lines 13–26), thereby teaching a metal oxide particle including nickel, cobalt and manganese.
KR ’116 discloses dopant elements Mᵃ and Mᵇ incorporated into the lithium composite metal oxide lattice, wherein Mᵃ is selected from Zr, Al, V, Co, and Mg and Mᵇ is selected from Ti, Y, Sr, Nb, Ba, and Ca (p. 6, lines 4–6). KR ’116 further discloses dopant molar ranges of 0 < z1 ≤ 0.025 (Mᵃ) and 0 < w1 ≤ 0.015 (Mᵇ) (p. 6, lines 1–6), thereby teaching Al, Zr, Nb, and Ti doped into the metal oxide particle in defined molar proportions relative to the total metal composition.
However, KR ’116 does not expressly disclose boron (B) as a dopant, nor does KR ’116 disclose that the doping amounts of Nb, Ti, and B satisfy the mathematical relationship:
3 < ([B] + [Ti])/[Nb] < 120.
JP ’539 discloses a nickel-based lithium composite metal oxide including nickel, cobalt and manganese for use in lithium secondary batteries (p. 8, lines 1–4). JP ’539 further discloses that the lithium composite metal oxide may be doped with one or more metals selected from Al, Ti, Mg, Zr, W, Y, Sr, Co, F, Si, Na, Cu, Fe, Ca, S, and B (p. 8, lines 9–15), thereby expressly teaching boron (B) as a dopant in an Ni–Co–Mn composite oxide system. JP ’539 therefore supplies the missing dopant element B to the doped NCM system of KR ’116.
KR ’610 discloses a positive electrode active material comprising a lithium composite metal oxide including Ni, Co, and Mn (KR ’610, pp. 6–7, Table 1 showing Ni/Co/Mn compositions). KR ’610 further discloses a composition formula including dopant coefficients a, b, and c defined as molar fractions within the lithium composite metal oxide (KR ’610, pp. 4–5).
KR ’610 expressly teaches controlling relative dopant proportions using a bounded mathematical inequality of the form:
1.6 ≤ (a + b)/c ≤ d, 1.9 ≤ (a + b)/c ≤ 8, and 2.6 ≤ (a + b)/c ≤ 5
(KR ’610, p. 5).
Thus, KR ’610 teaches that performance and structural stability of Ni–Co–Mn layered cathode materials may be optimized by controlling the ratio of the sum of two dopant coefficients divided by a third dopant coefficient within defined numerical bounds, where the coefficients represent molar quantities in the oxide lattice (pp. 4–5).
Although KR ’610’s specific embodiment controls the ratio of (Ti + Zr)/Mg, KR ’610 expressly establishes the broader principle of bounding a ratio of combined dopant elements relative to another dopant element within a layered Ni–Co–Mn positive electrode active material.
KR ’116, JP ’539, and KR ’610 are analogous arts because each reference is directed to layered nickel–cobalt–manganese positive electrode active materials for lithium secondary batteries and seeks to improve electrochemical performance and structural stability through controlled incorporation and proportioning of dopant elements within the crystal lattice.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the doped NCM material of KR ’116 by incorporating boron as taught by JP ’539, and further to control the relative molar proportions of Nb, Ti, and B according to the ratio-control principles expressly taught in KR ’610 (pp. 4–5), such that the combined amount of B and Ti relative to Nb falls within a defined inequality range, including 3 < ([B]+[Ti])/[Nb] < 120. Because KR ’610 teaches that cathode performance may be optimized by bounding the ratio of combined dopant elements relative to another dopant element within specified limits, selecting appropriate molar amounts within the dopant ranges disclosed in KR ’116 to achieve the claimed inequality would have been a matter of routine optimization of known result-effective variables. Accordingly, the subject matter of Claim 9 would have been obvious.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 2020-0047116 A (KR ’116) in view of JP 2020-520539 A (JP ’539) and further in view of WO 2020/111893 A1 (WO ’893).
As to Claim 12:
KR ’116 further discloses that dopant elements Mᵃ and Mᵇ are incorporated into the lithium composite oxide lattice, where Mᵃ is selected from Zr, Al, V, Co, and Mg and Mᵇ is selected from Ti, Y, Sr, Nb, Ba, and Ca (p. 6, lines 4–6). KR ’116 further discloses dopant molar ranges of 0 < z1 ≤ 0.025 and 0 < w1 ≤ 0.015 (p. 6, lines 1–6), thereby teaching a multi-doped nickel-cobalt-manganese metal oxide particle.
However, KR ’116 does not expressly disclose boron (B) as a dopant and does not disclose a grain size range of 1,036 Å to 1,440 Å.
JP ’539 discloses a lithium composite metal oxide positive electrode active material including nickel, cobalt and manganese (p. 8, lines 1–4). JP ’539 further discloses that the lithium composite metal oxide may include one or more dopant elements selected from Al, Ti, Mg, Zr, W, Y, Sr, Co, F, Si, Na, Cu, Fe, Ca, S, and B (p. 8, lines 9–15), thereby teaching boron (B) as an additional dopant element. JP ’539 teaches that incorporation of such dopants improves structural stability and electrochemical characteristics (p. 5, lines 15–25), thereby completing the five-dopant system recited in claim 1.
WO ’893 discloses a nickel-rich layered lithium composite oxide cathode material comprising nickel, cobalt, and manganese and further including dopant elements such as Zr, Al, and Ti (WO ’893, p. 4, lines 10–20). WO ’893 further discloses that the average grain size of the metal oxide particles is controlled within a range of 80 nm to 140 nm (WO ’893, p. 6, lines 5–15). The disclosed upper bound of 140 nm corresponds to 1,400 Å, which falls within the claimed grain size range of 1,036 Å to 1,440 Å (i.e., 103.6 nm to 144 nm). Thus, WO ’893 teaches a grain size range that overlaps the claimed range.
KR ’116, JP ’539, and WO ’893 are analogous arts because each reference is directed to doped nickel–cobalt–manganese layered positive electrode active materials for lithium secondary batteries and seeks to improve structural stability and electrochemical performance through dopant incorporation and microstructural control.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the doped Ni–Co–Mn lithium composite oxide of KR ’116, incorporating boron as taught by JP ’539, and further to control the grain size of the metal oxide particles within the overlapping range disclosed by WO ’893 (80–140 nm), in order to optimize electrochemical performance and structural stability. Because WO ’893 expressly teaches controlling grain size within a range that overlaps the claimed 1,036 Å to 1,440 Å, selection of a grain size within the overlapping portion of the ranges would have been an obvious matter of routine optimization.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 2020-0047116 A (KR ’116) in view of JP 2020-520539 A (JP ’539), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of JP 4217712 B2 (JP ’712).
As to Claim 13:
KR ’116 further discloses that A includes nickel, cobalt, and manganese (p. 6, lines 13–26), thereby teaching a metal oxide particle including nickel, cobalt and manganese.
KR ’116 further discloses that dopant elements Mᵃ and Mᵇ are incorporated into the lithium composite oxide lattice, where Mᵃ is selected from Zr, Al, V, Co, and Mg and Mᵇ is selected from Ti, Y, Sr, Nb, Ba, and Ca (p. 6, lines 4–6). KR ’116 further discloses dopant molar ranges of 0 < z1 ≤ 0.025 and 0 < w1 ≤ 0.015 (p. 6, lines 1–6), thereby teaching a multi-doped nickel-cobalt-manganese metal oxide particle.
However, KR ’116 does not expressly disclose boron (B) as a dopant and does not disclose any full width at half maximum (FWHM) value for the (110) planes of the metal oxide particle, nor any XRD peak half-width range of 0.126 to 0.204.
JP ’539 discloses a lithium composite metal oxide positive electrode active material including nickel, cobalt and manganese (p. 8, lines 1–4). JP ’539 further discloses that the lithium composite metal oxide may include one or more dopant elements selected from Al, Ti, Mg, Zr, W, Y, Sr, Co, F, Si, Na, Cu, Fe, Ca, S, and B (p. 8, lines 9–15), thereby teaching boron (B) as an additional dopant element and completing the five-dopant system recited in claim 1. JP ’539 teaches that incorporation of such dopants improves structural stability and electrochemical characteristics (p. 5, lines 15–25).
However, JP ’539 does not disclose any FWHM value for the (110) planes or any X-ray diffraction peak half-width values in the claimed range.
JP ’712 discloses a lithium composite metal oxide positive electrode active material including nickel, cobalt and manganese and further teaches that, when measured by X-ray diffraction using Cu-Kα radiation, the half width (i.e., full width at half maximum) of the diffraction peak of the (110) plane is 0.12 to 0.25 degrees (JP ’712, col. 3, lines 20–32). JP ’712 further provides an example in which the (110) plane half-value width is 0.192 degrees (JP ’712, col. 6, lines 10–15), which falls squarely within the claimed range of 0.126 to 0.204.
Thus, JP ’712 expressly teaches an FWHM range of 0.12 to 0.25 for the (110) planes of a nickel–cobalt–manganese metal oxide, which encompasses and overlaps the claimed range of 0.126 to 0.204.
KR ’116, JP ’539, and JP ’712 are analogous arts because each reference is directed to layered nickel–cobalt–manganese lithium composite oxide positive electrode active materials for lithium secondary batteries and concerns improving structural stability and electrochemical performance through compositional and crystallographic control.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the doped Ni–Co–Mn lithium composite oxide of KR ’116, incorporating boron as taught by JP ’539 to complete the multi-dopant system, and to control the crystallographic structure such that the FWHM of the (110) plane falls within the overlapping range taught by JP ’712 (0.12–0.25), thereby arriving at a material having an FWHM value within the claimed range of 0.126 to 0.204. Because JP ’712 expressly teaches a range that encompasses the claimed values and provides an example within the claimed range, selection of a value within the overlapping portion of the ranges would have been an obvious matter of routine optimization of crystallinity and microstructure.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 2020-0047116 A (KR ’116) in view of JP 2020-520539 A (JP ’539), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of KR 2020-0036424 A (KR ’424).
As to Claim 14:
KR ’116 further discloses that A includes nickel, cobalt, and manganese (p. 6, lines 13–26), thereby teaching a metal oxide particle including nickel, cobalt and manganese.
KR ’116 further discloses that dopant elements Mᵃ and Mᵇ are incorporated into the lithium composite oxide lattice, where Mᵃ is selected from Zr, Al, V, Co, and Mg and Mᵇ is selected from Ti, Y, Sr, Nb, Ba, and Ca (p. 6, lines 4–6). KR ’116 further discloses dopant molar ranges of 0 < z1 ≤ 0.025 and 0 < w1 ≤ 0.015 (p. 6, lines 1–6), thereby teaching a multi-doped nickel-cobalt-manganese metal oxide particle.
However, KR ’116 does not expressly disclose boron (B) as a dopant and does not disclose any X-ray diffraction peak intensity ratio I(003)/I(104), nor any numeric range for such ratio.
JP ’539 discloses a lithium composite metal oxide positive electrode active material including nickel, cobalt and manganese (p. 8, lines 1–4). JP ’539 further discloses that the lithium composite metal oxide may include one or more dopant elements selected from Al, Ti, Mg, Zr, W, Y, Sr, Co, F, Si, Na, Cu, Fe, Ca, S, and B (p. 8, lines 9–15), thereby teaching boron (B) as an additional dopant element and completing the five-dopant system recited in claim 1. JP ’539 further teaches that such dopant incorporation improves structural stability and electrochemical characteristics (p. 5, lines 15–25).
However, JP ’539 does not disclose the X-ray diffraction peak intensity ratio I(003)/I(104) or any range of 1.186 to 1.204.
KR ’424 discloses a lithium composite metal oxide positive electrode active material including nickel, cobalt, and manganese, and expressly teaches that, when measuring the X-ray diffraction pattern, the ratio of the peak intensity of the (003) plane to the peak intensity of the (104) plane, I(003)/I(104), may range from 1.13 to 1.27 (KR ’424, p. 9, lines 4–9). The disclosed range of 1.13 to 1.27 encompasses and overlaps the claimed range of 1.186 to 1.204. Because both 1.186 and 1.204 fall squarely within 1.13–1.27, KR ’424 expressly teaches a broader range that includes the claimed sub-range.
KR ’424 further explains that controlling the I(003)/I(104) ratio relates to the layered structure ordering and stability of the nickel-cobalt-manganese oxide cathode material (KR ’424, p. 8–9), thereby providing structural motivation for controlling this crystallographic parameter.
KR ’116, JP ’539, and KR ’424 are analogous arts because each reference is directed to layered nickel-cobalt-manganese lithium composite oxide positive electrode active materials for lithium secondary batteries and concerns improving structural stability and electrochemical performance through compositional and crystallographic control.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the doped Ni-Co-Mn lithium composite oxide of KR ’116, incorporating boron as taught by JP ’539 to complete the multi-dopant system, and to control the crystallographic structure such that the I(003)/I(104) peak intensity ratio falls within the broader range taught by KR ’424 (1.13–1.27), thereby arriving at a material having an I(003)/I(104) ratio within the claimed range of 1.186 to 1.204. Because KR ’424 expressly teaches a range that encompasses the claimed values, selection of a value within the overlapping portion of the ranges would have been an obvious matter of routine optimization of the layered ordering parameter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
KR 101049543 B1 discloses any one compound selected from the group consisting of a first lithium transition metal composite oxide comprising a compound represented by the formula (1), and a compound represented by the formula (2), a compound represented by the formula (3), and combinations thereof It provides a cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery comprising a second lithium transition metal composite oxide.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIMMY K VO whose telephone number is (571)272-3242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 am to 6 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, Tong Guo can be reached at (571) 272-3066. 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.
/JIMMY VO/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1723
/JIMMY VO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723