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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on May 12, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1 and 3-10 remain pending in the application. Claims 1 and 6 are currently amended. Claim 2 is canceled. Applicant’s amendments to claim 6 overcome each and every objection previous set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on February 12, 2026.
The previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are maintained.
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, 3-5, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun et al. (US 2020/0119351 A1, hereinafter “Yun”) in view of Shim et al. (ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 2019, hereinafter “Yun”).
Regarding claim 1, Yun discloses a positive electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery ([0002], a nickel-based active material for a lithium secondary battery), comprising:
lithium transition metal oxide particles having a core-shell structure including a core portion ([0086], core portion and intermediate layer portion on the core portion) and a shell portion ([0086], shell portion),
wherein the shell portion is disposed on a surface of the core portion ([0086], shell portion on the intermediate layer portion),
wherein an amount of nickel among total transition metals included in the core portion and the shell portion is 80 atm% or more ([0083], the content of Ni in the nickel-based active material may be in a range of about 33 mol % to about 97 mol % with respect to a total amount of transition metals, and [0084], the nickel-based active material is, for example, Li(Ni0.91Co0.06Mn0.03)1-aMaO2-αXα, wherein 0<a≤0.01 and 0<α≤0.01).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.05(I)).
Yun does not disclose wherein an average crystallite size of the core portion is smaller than an average crystallite size of the shell portion, and wherein a difference between the average crystallite size of the core portion and the average crystallite size of the shell portion is in a range of 20 nm to 150 nm.
Yun further discloses wherein the average crystallite size of the shell portion is in a range of 180 nm to 250 nm ([0058], plate particles wherein the average of the minor axis and major axis is in a range of 175 nm to 675 nm).
Shim discloses wherein an average crystallite size of the core portion is smaller than an average crystallite size of the shell portion (page 2, small particles in the core structure and large particles in the shell structure), and wherein the average crystallite size of the core portion is in a range of 100 nm to 180 nm (page 3, small primary particles ~100 nm or smaller in sample C2).
Yun and Shim are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of lithium-nickel composite positive electrode active materials. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positive electrode active material as taught by Yun to incorporate the teachings of Shim so that wherein an average crystallite size of the core portion is smaller than an average crystallite size of the shell portion, and wherein a difference between the average crystallite size of the core portion and the average crystallite size of the shell portion is in a range of 20 nm to 150 nm. Doing so would result in enhanced capacity, rate capability, and improved cycle life (Shim page 2). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 3, modified Yun discloses the limitations of claim 1. Modified Yun further discloses wherein a difference between the average crystallite size of the core portion and the average crystallite size of the shell portion is in a range of 30 nm to 100 nm (as set forth above in the rejection of amended claim 1, difference in modified Yun is in a range of 75 nm to 575 nm). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 4, modified Yun discloses the limitations of claim 1. Modified Yun further discloses wherein the average crystallite size of the core portion is in a range of 100 nm to 180 nm (Shim page 3, small primary particles ~100 nm or smaller in sample C2). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 5, modified Yun discloses the limitations of claim 1. Yun further discloses wherein the average crystallite size of the shell portion is in a range of 180 nm to 250 nm ([0058], plate particles wherein the average of the minor axis and major axis is in a range of 175 nm to 675 nm). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 9, modified Yun discloses the limitations of claim 1. Yun further discloses a positive electrode comprising the positive electrode active material of claim 1, and a current collector ([0103], positive electrode fabricated by applying a composition for forming a positive active material layer on a current collector and drying).
Regarding claim 10, modified Yun discloses the limitations of claim 1. Yun further discloses a lithium secondary battery ([0122] and Fig. 4, lithium secondary battery 1) comprising: the positive electrode of claim 9 ([0122] and Fig. 4, positive electrode 3); a negative electrode ([0122] and Fig. 4, negative electrode 2); a separator disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode ([0122] and Fig. 4, separator 4); and an electrolyte ([0122], organic electrolytic solution).
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun (US 2020/0119351 A1) in view of Shim (ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 2019) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamauchi et al. (JP 6631320 B2, machine translation relied upon herein, and hereinafter “Yamauchi”).
Regarding claim 6, modified Yun discloses the limitations of claim 1. Yun does not disclose wherein, in the lithium transition metal oxide particles, a mole fraction of the nickel among a total transition metals of the core portion is smaller than a mole fraction of the nickel among a total transition metals of the shell portion.
Yamauchi discloses wherein, in the lithium transition metal oxide particles, a mole fraction of the nickel among a total transition metals of the core portion is smaller than a mole fraction of the nickel among a total transition metals of the shell portion ([0019] and Fig. 4, nickel-rich layer extending from the particle surface to interior of the particles).
Yun and Yamauchi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of lithium-nickel composite positive electrode active materials. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positive electrode active material as taught by modified Yun to incorporate the teachings of Yamauchi so that wherein, in the lithium transition metal oxide particles, a mole fraction of the nickel among a total transition metals of the core portion is smaller than a mole fraction of the nickel among a total transition metals of the shell portion. Doing so would result in high charge/discharge capacity and excellent cycle characteristics (Yamauchi [0014]).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, modified Yun discloses the limitations of claim 6. Yun further discloses
wherein the core portion has a composition represented by [Formula 1]: Lix1Nia1Cob1Mnc1Ald1M1e1O2, (claim 7), and wherein the shell portion has a composition represented by [Formula 2]: Lix2Nia2Cob2Mnc2Ald2M2e2O2 (claim 8) ([0080]-[0081] and Formula 3, Lia(Ni1-x-y-zCoxMnyMz)O2-αXα, M can be Al and X can be F), and
wherein, in Formula 1, M1 is at least one selected from the group consisting of zirconium (Zr), boron (B), tungsten (W), magnesium (Mg), cerium (Ce), hafnium (Hf), tantalum (Ta), lanthanum (La), titanium (Ti), strontium (Sr), barium (Ba), fluorine (F), phosphorus (P), and sulfur (S) (claim 7), and wherein, in Formula 2, M2 is at least one selected from the group consisting of Zr, B, W, Mg, Ce, Hf, Ta, La, Ti, Sr, Ba, F, P, and S (claim 8) ([0081] and Formula 3, M can be Al and X can be F), and
wherein x1, a1, b1, c1, d1, and e1 are 0.90≤x1≤1.1, 0.80≤a1≤0.95, 0<b1<0.20, 0<c1<0.20, 0<d1≤0.10, and 0≤e1<0.10 (claim 7), and wherein x2, a2, b2, c2, d2, and e2 are 0.90≤x2≤1.1, 0.83≤a2<1.0, 0<b2<0.17, 0<c2<0.17, 0<d2≤0.10, and 0≤e2<0.10 (claim 8) ([0082] and Formula 3, 1.0≤a≤1.1, 0.33≤(1-x-y-z)≤0.95, 0.1<x≤1/3, 0.05≤y≤0.3, 0<z≤0.009, and 0≤α≤0.0013, and [0084], for example, Li(Ni0.91Co0.06Mn0.03)1-aMaO2-αXα, wherein 0<a≤0.01 and 0<α≤0.01).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.05(I)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on May 12, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 5-6 that “neither Yun nor Shim teaches a numerical difference between the average crystallite size of the core portion and the average crystallite size of the shell portion, let alone, the size difference range of 20 nm to 150 nm as claimed.” In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicant’s reply fails to address the combined teachings of the applied references and instead only argues that each reference individually does not teach all of the claim limitations. The limitations of amended claim 1 are disclosed in the combination of Yun and Shim, and it is the combination of the references that renders the claimed invention obvious.
In response to Applicant’s argument on pages 6-7 “that there is no motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the positive active material, of Yun, by the smaller particle size (~100 nm) in the core portion, as taught in Shim”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Yun discloses that the ranges of plate particle average thickness, average surface length, and ratio thereof facilitates radial arrangement of the plate particles, improving active material structural stability ([0058]), but is silent as to the core portion particle size. Shim discloses that small particles in the core structure for enhanced capacity and rate capability (p. 4018 col. 2). Shim further provides a C2 sample with small primary particles that are ~100 nm or smaller in the core and large primary particles that are ~500 nm or larger in the shell, for a difference of at least 400 nm (p. 4019), but is silent as to a specific range for maximizing beneficial effects. The modification of Yun with the teachings of Shim, specifically the small primary particles, is merely filling a gap in the disclosure of Yun. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the active material structural stability disclosed in Yun and the enhanced capacity and rate capability disclosed in Shim are desirable effects, and would have reasonably selected crystallite sizes to optimize between these properties.
In response to Applicant’s argument on pages 7-9 “that the combination of Yun and Shim does not teach the crystallite sizes, and further does not teach the numerical difference between the crystallite sizes in the core portion and the shell portion to be in the range of 20 nm to 150 nm”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated in page 8 of Applicant’s remarks, Shim discloses “grains (primary particles)” on page 4020. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Shim’s “grains (primary particles)” as a “crystallite” as recited in amended claim 1 (see Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition of “crystallite”).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Jackie Liang whose telephone number is (571)-272-0880. The examiner can normally be reached M to F 8:45AM to 4:45PM.
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, Jeffrey T. Barton can be reached at (571)-272-1307. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1726
/JEFFREY T BARTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1726 9 September 2026
Prosecution Insights