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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-6 and 13-14, drawn to a positive electrode active material, a positive electrode, and a lithium secondary battery in the reply filed on 04/08/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 7-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention (Group II), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/08/2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/13/2023, 03/20/2024, 09/10/2024, 10/11/2024, and 02/25/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
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 1-5 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (KR 101810574 B1, citation from enclosed machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Cho teaches a positive electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery (Technical Field paragraph, [0054]), comprising
a secondary particle ([0007]) having an average particle size (D50) of 5 to 15 μm ([0030]). This range overlaps with the claimed range of 1 to 15 μm. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Cho further teaches that the secondary particle is formed by agglomeration of a plurality of nickel-based lithium metal oxide particles ([0051]) having an average particle size (D50) of 0.2 to 15μm ([0088]), corresponding to the claimed “at least two primary macro particles”. The average particle size of the nickel-based lithium metal oxide particles (0.2 to 15μm) overlaps the claimed range of 0.1 to 3 μm. Accordingly, a prima facie case of obviousness is established for this limitation as well (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
Cho also teaches a coating layer of a lithium-metal oxide on a surface of the secondary particle ([0075-0078]).
With respect to composition, Cho teaches that the plurality of nickel-based lithium metal oxide particles may each be represented by LiaNi1-x-yCoxMyO2 ([0083-0084]) wherein 0.9<a<1.1, 0<x<0.5, 0<y<0.5, 0<x+y<0.6, and M is at least one element selected from the group consisting of Mg, Ti, Zr, Nb, Mo, Al, Mn, Mg, V, and a rare earth element ([0085-0086]). These disclosures overlap with the claimed composition LiaNi1-x-yCoxM1yM2wO2 wherein 1≤a≤1.5, 0≤x≤0.2, 0≤y≤0.2, 0≤w≤0.1, 0≤x+y≤0.2, M1 includes at least one metal of Mn or Al, and M2 includes at least one metal selected from the group consisting of Ba, Ca, Zr, Ti, Mg, Ta, Nb and Mo, as claimed. Accordingly, a prima facie case of obviousness is established for this limitation as well (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
Cho further teaches that the second coating layer is a lithium-metal oxide coating having a chemical formula of LixCoO2 , wherein 0.95≤x≤1.05 and having a spinel structure (Fd-3m) ([0019-0022]). This corresponds to the claimed lithium-metal oxide LixCoO2 (0<x≤1), having at least one of a spinel structure (Fd-3m) or a disordered rock-salt structure (Fm-3m). A prima facie case of obviousness is established for this limitation as the range of x overlaps the claimed range.
Regarding the “low-temperature phase” limitation, the instant specification indicates that such a phase is formed by sintering at temperatures of about 350-500°C for 5-40 hours. Cho teaches calcination at 400–600°C for 3-5 hours ([0104-0105]), which overlaps the claimed processing temperature range (from 400-500°C) and abuts the claimed processing time (at 5 hours) (see MPEP 2144.05 I) and would reasonably result in a similar phase. In view of the similarities in composition, structure, and processing conditions, Cho’s coating is substantially identical to the claimed lithium-metal oxide coating. Thus, Cho discloses the same type of material as claimed. Where the prior art discloses a composition that is identical or substantially identical to the claimed composition, it is reasonable to conclude that the prior art composition inherently possesses the same characteristics, including a low-temperature phase, absent evidence to the contrary (see MPEP 2112(V); MPEP 2112.01(I) and (II)). Accordingly, it would have been expected that coating of Cho necessarily exhibit a low temperature phase. Therefore, the “low-temperature phase” limitation is considered inherent or at least obvious in view of Cho.
Accordingly, all limitations of claim 1 are taught or suggested by Cho, and the claimed invention would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, Cho discloses all limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Cho further teaches a limitation wherein the lithium-metal oxide has the spinel structure (Fd-3m) ([0019]).
Regarding claim 3, Cho discloses all limitations of claim 1 as stated above. As discussed above, Cho teaches that the average particle size (D50) of the at least two primary macro particles is 0.2 to 15μm ([0088]). This range overlaps the claimed range of 1 to 3 μm. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Cho also teaches that the average particle size (D50) of the secondary particle is 5 to 15 μm ([0030]). This range overlaps with the claimed range of 3 to 10 μm. Accordingly, a prima facie case of obviousness is established for this limitation as well.
Regarding claim 4, Cho discloses all limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Cho further teaches a limitation wherein the second coating layer is present in an amount of 0.5 to 2 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the secondary particle ([0024]). This range overlaps the claimed range of 0.05 to 3 parts by weight. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 5, Cho discloses all limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Cho further teaches a limitation wherein an average crystallite size of the at least two primary macro particles is 130 nm or more ([0050, 0088]). Specifically, Cho discloses that the crystallite (grain) size is equivalent to the size of primary particle ([0050]). Additionally, as noted with respect to claim 1, Cho teaches that the primary particles size ranges from 200 nm to 15 μm ([0088]). Accordingly, Cho teaches a crystallite size ranges from 200 nm to 15 μm, which overlays with the claimed lower limit of 130 nm or more. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 13, Cho discloses all limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Cho further teaches a positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery ([0093]) comprising a positive electrode current collector and a positive electrode active material layer comprising the positive electrode active material according to claim 1 on the positive electrode current collector ([0118-0119]).
Regarding claim 14, Cho discloses all limitations of claim 13 as stated above. Cho further teaches a lithium secondary battery comprising the positive electrode according to claim 13, a negative electrode opposite the positive electrode, a separator between the positive electrode and the negative electrode, and an electrolyte (Fig. 2, [0128]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Luo et al. (CN 105185962 A, citation from enclosed machine translation).
Regarding claim 6, Cho discloses all limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Cho fails to teach a limitation wherein a lithium impurity of the positive electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery is present in an amount of 0.7 weight% or less.
However, Luo teaches this limitation. Specifically, Luo teaches a positive electrode material for a lithium secondary battery wherein the base material is a compound represented by formula LinNi1-x-yCoxMyO2 wherein 0.95<n<1.15, 0<x<0.3, 0.01<y<0.1, and M comprises one or more of titanium, magnesium, manganese, aluminum, zirconium, lanthanum, strontium, niobium and molybdenum (page 1, lines 55-58; page 2, lines 1-10); the base material is secondary particles formed by the primary particles spherical, the average particle diameter of primary particles is 0.1 microns to 2.5 microns, the average particle diameter of the secondary particles is 3 micron to 20 micron (page 2, lines 14-16). The composition disclosed by Luo overlaps with the range taught by Cho; accordingly, Luo’s composition is similar to that of Cho. Importantly, Luo teaches that the impurity content of lithium is 0.0695% to 0.1126% (page 7, lines 56-57), which falls well within the claimed range of 0.7 wt% or less. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Luo also teaches this composition of positive electrode material improves battery performance, including capacity, cycle performance, and thermal stability (page 1, lines 57-59). Further, Cho and Luo are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of positive electrode material composition.
Therefore, Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would modify the material of Cho to include a lithium impurity content within the range taught by Luo, motivated by Luo’s teaching that such impurity levels improve battery performance (page 1, lines 57-59). Further, lithium impurity content represents a result-effective variable, and optimizing such a variable to obtain desired performance would have been achieved through routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II), see also In re Aller, 220 F.2d (CCPA 1955). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to arrive at the claimed invention, including the limitation of a lithium impurity content of 0.7 wt% or less.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lili Rassouli whose telephone number is (571)272-9760. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 AM-4:00 PM.
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, Matthew T Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/LILI RASSOULI/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/JESSIE WALLS-MURRAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights