DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1, 4-12, 15, 16, 19, 20, and 22-25 are pending, with claims 19, 20, and 22-25 withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention.
Claims 2, 3, 13, 14, 17, 18, 21, and 26 have been canceled.
The foreign priority application No. 10-2020-0179584 filed on December 21, 2020 in the Republic of Korea has been received and it is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 12, 15, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation “andthe” in claim 12, line 2 should be corrected to read “and the”.
Claims 15 and 16 are objected to as being dependent on the objected claim 12.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 4 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.
Claim 4 depends on claim 1, and recites that the surface portion includes an amorphous structure and a rock salt structure.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite that the surface portion includes a film and the film contains a compound of amorphous structure.
It is not clear if the surface portion includes an amorphous structure and a rock salt structure in addition to the compound of amorphous structure, or if the surface portion comprises the compound of amorphous structure and a rock salt structure.
Therefore, it is not clear what is the joint inventor claiming as the invention in claim 4 of the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 5, 9-12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2011/0079752) in view of Tomohiro et al. (CN 101292389A, with machine translation attached) and in further view of Ebrahiminia et al. (“Structural, Mechanical, and Dynamical Properties of Amorphous Li2CO3 from Molecular Dynamics Simulations”).
With regard to claims 1 and 5, Park et al. teach a nickel-based lithium transition metal oxide containing nickel (Ni) and at least one selected from the group consisting of manganese (Mn) and cobalt (Co). The oxide has a layered crystal structure and it may be in the form of a primary particle (abstract, par.0008).
This particle is a “single particle” in claim 1.
A primary/single particle inherently includes a center, so the nickel-based lithium transition metal oxide primary particle of Park et al. is a “metal oxide particle including a center” in claim 1, and it meets the limitations for “the center contains a layered structure” in claim 5.
Park et al. fail to teach the surface portion in claim 1.
Tomohiro et al. teach a lithium secondary battery (abstract), wherein the positive electrode of the lithium secondary battery includes a lithium transition metal oxide containing nickel, cobalt, and manganese (par.0188-0189, par.0205-0206).
Tomohiro et al. further teach that the lithium transition metal oxide may be coated with a compound such as lithium carbonate (par.0208). The coating suppresses the oxidation reaction of non-aqueous electrolyte solution on the surface of the positive electrode active material (par.0210).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to form a coating of lithium carbonate on the surface of the nickel-based lithium transition metal oxide primary particle of Park et al., in order to suppress the oxidation reaction of non-aqueous electrolyte solution on the surface of the nickel-based lithium transition metal oxide particle.
The nickel-based lithium transition metal oxide primary particle coated with lithium carbonate of Park modified by Tomohito et al. meets the limitations of claim 1 for “a surface portion positioned on the surface of the center, wherein the surface portion includes a film, and the surface portion does not contain boron (B)” in claim 1.
Park et al. and Tomohiro et al. fail to teach that the lithium carbonate is in amorphous form.
However, Ebrahiminia et al. teach that amorphous Li2CO3 has high Li+ conductivity (last sentence on page 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to use amorphous lithium carbonate (Li2CO3) for the coating of the particle of modified Park, in order to take advantage of its high Li+ conductivity.
Amorphous lithium carbonate (Li2CO3) of modified Park is the “compound of amorphous structure, wherein the compound of amorphous structure contains carbon and lithium” in claim 1.
Therefore, the primary particle of modified Park meets the limitations of claims 1 and 5 of the instant application.
With regard to claims 9-11, Park et al. teach that the primary particle has an average diameter of 3 to 10mm (par.0039).
Tomohiro et al. teach that the lithium carbonate (Li2CO3) coating may represent 0,1ppm to 10% of the positive electrode active material (par.0210). Therefore, the lithium carbonate (Li2CO3) coating will be very thin, and the average diameter of the particles of modified Park will be between slightly more than 3mm and slightly more than 10mm.
It would be expected that the particles of modified Park meet the limitations of claims 9 and 10.
The size of the particles of modified Park overlaps the range in claim 11.
With regard to claims 12 and 15, Park et al. teach that the nickel-based lithium transition metal oxide preferably comprises both manganese (Mn) and cobalt (Co) (par.0036), and the transition metals may be partially substituted by Al and Zr (par.0037).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2011/0079752) in view of Tomohiro et al. (CN 101292389A, with machine translation attached) and Ebrahiminia et al. (“Structural, Mechanical, and Dynamical Properties of Amorphous Li2CO3 from Molecular Dynamics Simulations”) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Yoo et al. (KR 10-2019-0117199, with citations from the English language equivalent US 2021/0020902)
With regard to claim 16, modified Park teach the positive electrode active material of claim 15 (see paragraph 8 above), but fail to teach the amount of Al and Zr dopants.
Yoo at al. teach a positive electrode active material comprising a lithium transition metal oxide doped with an element M2 such as Al and Zr(abstract). Yoo et al. teach that the amount of dopant M2 (such as Zr and Al) has influence over the structural stability and the life characteristics of the battery at high voltage (par.0036-0037, par.0048).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to vary the amounts of Zr and Al dopants in the lithium transition metal oxide of modified Park, in order to optimize the structural stability and the life characteristics of the battery at high voltage.
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05.II.A. Optimization Within Prior Art Conditions or Through Routine Experimentation)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Tomohiro et al. (CN 101292389A, with machine translation attached) teach that the surface specific area (BET) of the lithium transition metal oxide containing nickel, cobalt, and manganese is 0.4-2 m2/g (par.0191). These values are outside the range in claim 8.
Park et al. (US 2011/0079752) teach that the primary particle has an average diameter of 3 to 10mm (30,000 to 100,000 Angstrom) (par.0039), and fail to teach the grain size of the metal oxide particle in claim 7.
There are no prior art teachings that would motivate one of ordinary skill to modify Park et al. and obtain the positive electrode active materials in claims 6-8 of the instant application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on August 21, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The examiner would like to note that:
-the objection to the drawings is withdrawn after the filing of the replacement drawings;
-the objection to the specification is withdrawn after the applicant’s amendment to the specification;
-the objections to claims 1-12, 15, and 16 are withdrawn after the applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 8;
-the rejection of claims 1, 2, 8, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Nako et al. (JP 2015-204211 A, with attached machine translation), as evidenced by “Diamond-like carbon” is withdrawn after the applicant’s amendment to claim 1;
-the rejection of claims 1-3, 5, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Baek et al. (US 2019/0165362) is withdrawn after the applicant’s amendment to claim 1; and
-the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9-12, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo et al. (KR 10-2019-0117199, with citations from the English language equivalent US 2021/0020902) in view of Baek et al. (US 2019/0165362) is withdrawn after the applicant’s amendment to claim 1.
However, new grounds of rejection for claims 1, 4, 5, 9-12, 15, and 16 are presented in paragraphs 5-9 above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 ANCA EOFF whose telephone number is (571)272-9810. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10am-6:30pm.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571)272-3433. 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.
/ANCA EOFF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
