DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
In the amendment dated 6/12/26, the following has occurred: Claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 8, and 9 have been amended; and Claims 2 and 4-5 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 3, and 6-16 are pending. This communication is a Final Rejection in response to the "Amendment" and "Remarks" filed on 6/12/26.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/12/26 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 3, 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”) and CN 106415900 A (hereinafter “CN’900”).
As to Claim 1:
KR’116 discloses a positive electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery; KR’116 discloses a metal oxide particle including nickel, cobalt and manganese; KR’116 discloses multiple doping elements doped into the metal oxide particle, wherein the doping elements include Al, Nb, Zr and Ti; and KR’116 discloses wherein the doping amount of the Nb is 0.0005 mol to 0.0025 mol, based on 1 mol of the total of nickel, cobalt, manganese and doping elements, by teaching that the second dopant element content, which includes Nb, ranges up to 0.015 mol, i.e., 0 < w₁ ≤ 0.015, which broadly encompasses the claimed sub-range (Pg. 2-4, 6).
However, KR’116 does not disclose utilizing exactly five doping elements simultaneously, nor does it disclose boron (B) as one of the doping elements or the specific doping amount of B ranging from 0.005 mol to 0.01 mol based on 1 mol of the total metal elements.
JP’539 teaches the simultaneous use of multiple doping elements including Al, Ti, Zr, and B to co-stabilize the surface and crystal lattice of an NCM positive electrode active material (JP’539, Pg. 2-4). Furthermore, CN’900 explicitly discloses a hexagonal lithium nickel cobalt manganese composite oxide matrix where Al, Nb, Zr, and Ti are listed together as a closed menu of options for the core structural modifier variable M, while concurrently mandating the presence of boron (B) (CN’900, Pg. 2-4; Pg. 7-8; Pg. 18-19). CN’900 explicitly teaches that the preferred internal atomic ratio of boron to the total transition metals plus modifiers, B/Me, which corresponds to the same molar basis as the claim, is 0.001 to 0.05, and more preferably 0.002 to 0.01. This narrow, highly optimized range heavily overlaps and fully encompasses the claimed target range of 0.005 mol to 0.01 mol of boron (CN’900, Pg. 7-8; Pg. 18-19).
KR’116, JP’539, and CN’900 are analogous arts because each reference is directed to the identical field of endeavor: optimizing lithium nickel-cobalt-manganese (NCM) composite positive electrode active materials for lithium secondary batteries to lower internal resistance, reduce gas generation, and improve high-voltage or wide-temperature capacity retention (KR’116, Pg. 2-4; JP’539, Pg. 2-4; CN’900, Pg. 2-4; Pg. 7-8).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the multi-component doping framework of KR’116, providing Al, Nb, Zr, and Ti, with the boron-addition teachings of JP’539 and the specific boron range optimization of CN’900, because CN’900 provides a unified structural blueprint identifying boron concurrently with a modifier group containing Al, Nb, Zr, and Ti. Applying the optimized boron range, i.e., 0.002 to 0.01 mol, of CN’900 to the material of KR’116 would have been a matter of routine optimization to achieve the predictable benefit of dramatically lowering internal battery resistance across a wide spectrum of operating temperatures (KR’116, Pg. 3-4; JP’539, Pg. 2-4; CN’900, Pg. 7-8; Pg. 18-19).
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 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 6-7 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 CN 106415900 A (hereinafter “CN’900”), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of CN 111435743 A (CN’743).
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.
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 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 CN 106415900 A (hereinafter “CN’900”), as applied to Claim 1 above, 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 CN 106415900 A (hereinafter “CN’900”), as applied to Claim 1 above, 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 CN 106415900 A (hereinafter “CN’900”), as applied to Claim 1 above, 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) and CN 106415900 A (hereinafter “CN’900”), 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) and CN 106415900 A (hereinafter “CN’900”), 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/12/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants' contention that the prior art fails to teach Boron (B) actually used as a doping element doped into a crystal lattice structure is directly rebutted by the explicit teachings of the newly applied secondary reference, CN’900.
CN’900 structurally investigates the relationship between the lithium composite oxide and the introduced boron material. Section (2-d) of CN’900 explicitly instructs to take the prepared lithium transition metal composite oxide particles and dry-mix them uniformly with orthoboric acid before a subsequent heat treatment step. Following the heat treatment at
300
∘
C
to
580
∘
C
, CN’900 directly applies X-ray diffraction (XRD) and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) to analyze the resulting atomic lattice structure. CN’900 explicitly states:
"by X-ray diffraction (XRD...) analysis, to confirm that the lithium nickel cobalt manganese composite oxide crystal lattice constant is increased, a portion of the boron compound forms on the surface diffusion of lithium nickel cobalt manganese composite oxide particles..."
The literal disclosure that the prior art boron treatment directly causes an increase in the crystal lattice constant demonstrates that Boron is not merely residing as an inert surface crust, but is actively participating in lattice boundary diffusion and structural decoration matching the "doped into the metal oxide particle" limitation of the instant application.
Applicants point to Reference Examples 8 and 9 of the instant specification to argue that falling outside their narrow-claimed Boron range (
0.005
t
o
0.01
m
o
l
) results in rapid resistance increases or significant reductions in discharge capacity. However, this exact discovery is not an unpredictable or unexpected result in view of the prior art, but rather a direct confirmation of the optimization rules explicitly taught by CN’900.
In Section (1-b), CN’900 clarifies that if Boron is entirely in solid solution or structurally misallocated, it can reduce the capacity of the battery. To prevent these side effects while maximizing low-temperature and high-temperature cell outputs, CN’900 provides a highly precise mathematical optimization window:
"atoms of lithium composite oxide of nickel, cobalt, manganese, molybdenum, and M and (Me) with the anode active substance in the boron (B) atom number ratio (B/Me) is preferably 0.001 to 0.05, more preferably 0.002 to 0.01."
The preferred
B
/
M
e
atomic ratio range of
0.002
t
o
0.01
taught in CN’900 is calculated on the exact same molar basis as the instant claim (moles of Boron based on 1 mole of total transition metals and modifiers). Because this preferred prior art range fully encompasses and overlaps the applicant's claimed range of
0.005
t
o
0.01
m
o
l
, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. The applicant's target range represents a routine narrowing of a known, optimized prior art window to achieve the exact predictable benefits—namely, low resistance and high capacity retention—already disclosed by CN’900.
Lastly, Applicants contend that the cited references fail to teach or suggest a single positive electrode material comprising all five types of dopants concurrently (Al, Nb, B, Zr, and Ti). While KR’116 provides the baseline NCM particle parameters along with the explicit open range for Niobium (
0
<
w
1
≤
0.015
), CN’900 provides a unified structural blueprint that directly paths the combination of the remaining elements.
In the primary crystallization and mixing steps of CN’900, Boron (B) is utilized as a mandatory additive. Concurrently, the reference provides a compact, closed Markush menu of options for the core structural modifier variable
M
:
"M is at least one selected from 1 or more elements of Ca, Mg, Al, Ti, V, Cr, Zr, Nb, Hf, and Ta."
Because the prior art explicitly instructs the artisan to select "1 or more elements" out of a targeted menu that contains Al, Nb, Zr, and Ti simultaneously alongside a mandatory Boron configuration, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it entirely obvious to bring these five specific elements together to co-stabilize the NCM lattice and suppress gas generation. The resulting electrochemical benefits described by the applicant are predictable outcomes of the prior art teachings.
For the reasons above, applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
Prosecution Insights