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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office Action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on August 5th, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received on August 5th, 2026:
Claims 1, 5-6, and 8-13 are pending in the current application. Claims 1 and 6 have been amended. Claims 2-4 and 7 have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed with the Remarks on August 5th, 2026 with respect to Claims 1, 5-6, and 8-13 are acknowledged, however, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument that unexpected results occur with a positive electrode active material having doping elements Nb and Zr within the claimed ranges is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Examples as shared within their specification must be compared only in the instances wherein the nickel content is constant in order to measure unexpected results in regards to the impact of the Nb and Zr contents. This argument is not persuasive. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that in order to alter the content of either the Nb and/or Zr elements within the compound the other elements would have to somehow also be altered to account for 100 mol%. Further, there is no requirement of nickel to be within a specific claim range or to be held at a constant value (as the claim limitations stand currently written in independent Claim 1) and so it would be improper to test the criticality of the doping elements Nb and Zr in light of the nickel content when a specific nickel content is not included in the claim limitations.
Additionally, Applicant is incorrect in their arguments comparing Comparative Example 4 and Exemplary Embodiment 11 based on these examples having the same nickel content. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the compounds Li(Ni0.83Co0.075Mn0.075Al0.02)0.9965Zr0.0035 (Comparative Example 4) and Li(Ni0.83Co0.075Mn0.075Al0.02)0.994Zr0.0035Nb0.0025 (Exemplary Example 11) would not have the same nickel content as (0.83*0.9965=)0.827 is not equivalent to (0.83*0.994=)0.825. If Applicant were to be correct in stating that the nickel content must be constant to properly compare the efficacy of the Nb and/or Zr content, then the data as provided in Applicant’s specification would fail to provide any comparable examples that would define the claimed ranges.
Therefore, this argument is not persuasive and the rejection of record is maintained.
Applicant’s argument that unexpected results occur with a positive electrode active material having an aluminum content within the claimed range is not persuasive.
Applicant highlights Reference Example 5 for having an aluminum content that exceeds the claimed range. While Applicant is correct in stating that this does exceed the upper limit, the value Applicant presents (0.03 mol) is incorrect. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the compound Li(Ni0.89Co0.04Mn0.04Al0.025)0.994Zr0.0035Nb0.0025 would have an aluminum content of 0.0251 (=0.025/0.995) based on 1 mole of the total moles of nickel, cobalt, manganese, and aluminum. Further, while Reference Example 5 may have less desirable outcomes than some examples that fall within the claimed range, Reference Example 7 satisfies the claimed aluminum content (0.02 mol) but has a lower discharge capacity than that of Reference Example 5.
Therefore, this argument is not persuasive and the rejection of record is maintained. Any amendment to the rejection are as necessitated by the amendment.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on July 31st, 2026 has been received and considered by the Examiner.
Claim Interpretation
All “wherein” clauses are given patentable weight unless otherwise noted. Please see MPEP 2111.04 regarding optional claim language.
Prior Art
Previously cited Park KR20200047116 (“Park”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claims 1, 5-6, and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park KR20200047116 (for purposes of examination, US PG Publication 2022/0037658 is cited throughout and a machine translation of KR20200047116 has been provided in a previous Office Action).
Regarding Claim 1, Park discloses a positive electrode active material for a secondary battery comprising lithium ([0009]-[0010], entire disclosure dependent upon) comprising: a lithium composite transition metal oxide including nickel, cobalt, and manganese and two or more kinds of first dopants selected from a list including zirconium (Zr) and aluminum (Al) and two or more kinds of second dopants selected from a group including niobium (Nb) ([0009]) (corresponding to claimed limitation wherein the two doping elements are Nb and Zr),
wherein a doping amount of the Nb is at most 0.015 mol (which encompasses the claimed range of 0.0001 mol to 0.0025 mol)1 (as represented by w1=0.015 in the instance where Mb is Nb) based on 1 mol of the total moles of nickel, cobalt, manganese, aluminum, and doping elements (as represented by 1= 1-(x1+y1+z1+w1)+x1+y1+z1+w1) ([0020]-[0021]), and
wherein a doping amount of the Zr is at most 0.025 mol (which encompasses the claimed range of 0.002 mol to 0.005 mol)1 (as represented by z1=0.025 in the instance where Ma is Zr) based on 1 mol of the total moles of nickel, cobalt, manganese, aluminum, and doping elements (as represented by 1= 1-(x1+y1+z1+w1)+x1+y1+z1+w1) ([0020]-[0021]),
and Park discloses wherein the positive electrode active material is represented by Formula 1: LipNi1-(x1+y1+z1+w1)Cox1Mny1Max1Mbw1O2+δ, Ma is both Al and Zr, Mb is Nb, and x1 is between 0 and 0.025 (which encompasses the claimed range of 0.01 to 0.025)1 ([0020]-[0021]).
1 In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding Claim 5, Park teaches the instantly claimed positive electrode active material according to Claim 1, and Park discloses wherein a doping amount of the Zr is greater than 0 and at most 0.025 mol (as represented by z1=0.025 in the instance where Ma is Zr) based on 1 mol of the total moles of nickel, cobalt, manganese, aluminum, and doping elements (as represented by 1= 1-(x1+y1+z1+w1)+x1+y1+z1+w1) ([0020]-[0021]) and wherein a doping amount of the Nb is greater than 0 and at most 0.015 mol (as represented by w1=0.015 in the instance where Mb is Nb) based on 1 mol of the total moles of nickel, cobalt, manganese, aluminum, and doping elements (as represented by 1= 1-(x1+y1+z1+w1)+x1+y1+z1+w1) ([0020]-[0021]).
Therefore, the skilled artisan would recognize that the active material of Park would have a doping amount of Nb and Zr that encompasses the claimed range of Equation 1 (0.3<[Zr]/[Nb]<40)1, including the instance where [Zr]/[Nb] = 0.025/0/015 = 1.67.
Regarding Claim 6, Park teaches the instantly claimed positive electrode active material according to Claim 1, and (as previously described in the rejection of Claim 1) Park discloses wherein the positive electrode active material is represented by Formula 1: LipNi1-(x1+y1+z1+w1)Cox1Mny1Max1Mbw1O2+δ ([0020]-[0021]). In the instance wherein Ma is both Al and Zr and Mb is Nb, Formula 1 of Park satisfies the claimed Chemical Formula 1: Lia[NixCoyMnzAlh]1-t(NbiZrj)tO2-pXp when p=0.
Regarding Claims 8-11, Park teaches the instantly claimed positive electrode active material according to Claim 1. Since the positive electrode active material of Park covers the entirety of the claimed positive electrode active material, a person having ordinary skill in the art would expect the positive electrode active material of Park to have the same properties of the claimed positive electrode active material. Including, but not limited to, initial diffusion coefficient values, grain sizes, FWHM values, and XRD patterns2.
2 Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Regarding Claim 12, Park teaches the instantly claimed positive electrode active material according to Claim 1, and Park discloses wherein the content of nickel in the metal oxide particle is 0.6 mol or more (which encompasses the claimed range of 0.8 mol or more)1, based on 1 mole of the total moles of nickel, cobalt, manganese, and aluminum ([0020]-[0023]).
Regarding Claim 13, Park discloses a lithium secondary battery ([0009]-[0011]), comprising: a positive electrode comprising the positive electrode active material as described in the rejection of Claim 1 ([0009]-[0011]); a negative electrode [0079]); and an electrolyte comprising a solvent selected from a group of materials including non-aqueous solvents ([0079]-[0088]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVIA MASON MELFI whose telephone number is (703)756-4652. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7am-6pm 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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571)272-1481. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/O.M.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights