DETAILED OFFICIAL 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 1-12 and 20-21 in the reply filed on 19 March 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 Claims 13-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in the current application, claims 13-19 are withdrawn, and claims 1-12 and 20-21 are under consideration on the merits.
Examiner Note
It is noted that all references hereinafter to Applicant’s specification are to the published application US 2024/0088373 A1, unless stated otherwise. Further, it is noted that italicized text in parentheses recited in any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 35 U.S.C. 103 indicates the element of the claimed invention to which the preceding prior art element corresponds. Additionally, any italicized text utilized hereinafter is to be interpreted as emphasis placed thereupon.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to for use of the phrase “… is disclosed herein.” A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
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.
Claims 1-12 and 20-21 are 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 1 recites the limitation “on a surface of the secondary particle” which renders the claim indefinite. Earlier within claim 1 recites “secondary particles”, therefore, it is unclear if “on a surface of the secondary particle” refers to a specific single instance of the secondary particles. For the purposes of examination, claims 3 and 6 are each interpreted as instead reciting “on a surface of the secondary particles.”
Claims 2-12 and 20-21 are indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as they are directly or ultimately dependent upon claim 1 and therefore include, and do not remedy the aforementioned deficiencies.
Appropriate action is required.
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.
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 1-5, 10, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon et al. (US 2019/0372109 A1; “Moon”) in view of Kim et al. (US 2017/0092932 A1; “Kim”).
Regarding claim 1, Moon discloses a lithium secondary battery [0075, 0080], comprising a cathode, an anode, a separator disposed therebetween, and an electrolyte [0080-0099]. The cathode includes a composite cathode active material (positive electrode active material) [0080].
Furthermore, the composite cathode active material includes a nickel-based lithium transition metal oxide (a lithium transition metal oxide) in the form of primary particles (primary particles) [element 10] that are arranged in plurality and as an aggregate [0032] to form a core (secondary particles) [element 100, 0032], thereby, in totality, reading on the lithium transition metal oxide is in the form of secondary particles, wherein each secondary particle is in an aggregate of a plurality of primary particles. The nickel-based lithium transition metal oxide has a composition represented by, inter alia, LiaNibCocMndM3eO2, wherein 0.7<b<1.0, and b+c+d+e=1 (has an amount of nickel of 80 atm% or more, relative to a total amount of metallic elements excluding lithium) [0060-0061, Formula 4].
Included on the core is a shell first composition (a first coating layer) [element 200, 0032, 0049], which may be on a portion of a surface of the core or on the entire surface of the core [0032]. The shell is, inter alia, a layered crystalline structure (has a layered structure) [0032, 0049-0050], and may contain nickel and manganese [0038-0039, 0049].
Additionally, a second composition may be disposed on the shell first composition (a second coating layer formed on an outer surface of the first coating layer) [0050-0051].
Moon does not explicitly disclose that the second coating layer contains boron.
However, Moon teaches a coating layer composition on the surface of a second cathode active material is, inter alia, an oxide containing, inter alia, boron [0079].
Kim is directed towards a positive electrode active material composition [0082-0083, 0094]. Kim teaches the positive electrode active material has a surface treatment layer formed on the surface of a core [0082, 0096]. The surface treatment layer includes a stabilizing dopant, of which is, inter alia, boron [0043-0044].
Moon and Kim each constitute prior art which is directly analogous to the claimed invention - positive electrode active material composition------. Therefore, given that boron would have been readily recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as suitable for use in a coating layer on the surface of a second cathode active material layer (MPEP 2144.07), it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the second composition that is disposed on the shell first composition of Moon to contain boron oxide, so that the crystal structure of the coating layer oxide is stabilized, as recognized by Kim [Kim, 0043].
Regarding claim 2, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, Moon further discloses LiaNibCocMndM3eO2, wherein 0.9≤a≤1, 0.7<b<1.0, 0<c<0.3, 0<d<0.3, 0≤e<0.1, b+c+d+e=1, and M3 may be, inter alia, zirconium (Zr) (M2 is at least one selected from the group consisting of zirconium (Zr)…) [0060-0061, Formula 4]. Each and every variable range overlaps with their corresponding claimed range, thereby rendering each range obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 3, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, Moon further discloses that the primary particles have an average particle diameter (average particle diameter) of 50-500 nm [0047], of which converts to 0.05-0.5 μm, and encompasses the claimed range, 0.1-0.5 μm, thereby rendering the range prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 4, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, Moon further discloses that the core/aggregate of the plurality of primary particles has an average particle diameter of 1-30 μm [0048], of which encompasses the claimed range, 8-15 μm, thereby rendering the range prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 5, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, Moon further discloses that the shell has a thickness of about (average thickness) 1-300 nm [0052], of which encompasses the claimed range, 10-200 nm, thereby rendering the range prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the second coating layer defined by claim 10.
Regarding claim 20, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the positive electrode defined by claim 20.
Regarding claim 21, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the lithium secondary battery defined by claim 21.
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon in view of Kim as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Han et al. (US 2020/0083522 A1; “Han”).
Regarding claim 6, Moon as modified by Kim teaches the positive electrode active material defined by claim 1.
Moon does not explicitly disclose that the first coating layer is represented by Lix[NizMnw]yO2, wherein 0.8≤x≤1.2, 0.8≤y≤1.2, 0.1≤z≤0.9, and 0.1≤w≤0.9.
However, Moon discloses a shell composition may be represented by the following: LiMO2, wherein M is at least two elements, of which may be, inter alia, nickel and manganese [0063-0065], with Ni in M being 70 mol% or greater [0065].
Han is directed to a positive electrode active material composition [0017]. Han teaches that a coating layer on the surface of a lithium manganese-based oxide [formula (1)] is represented by Lia’MeO2, wherein 0<a’<1 and Me is, inter alia, Nix’ and Mnz’, with 0<x’≤1 and 0<z’≤1 [formula (2), 0030-0033]. The coating layer may also act as an active material [0033] (MPEP 2144.07).
Furthermore, Moon discloses a second cathode active material with a lithium composite oxide composition of, inter alia, LiaA1-bBbD2, wherein A is, inter alia, nickel (Ni), B is, inter alia, manganese (Mn), D is, inter alia, oxygen (O), 0.9≤a≤1, and 0≤b≤0.5 [0077-0078]. Each and every variable range overlaps with their corresponding claimed range, thereby rendering each range obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Moon, Kim, and Han each constitute prior art which is directly analogous to the claimed invention - positive electrode active material composition------. In view of the combined teachings of the foregoing prior art, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the shell composition of modified Moon to explicitly be a cathode active material composition of LiaA1-bBbD2, wherein A is nickel (Ni), B is manganese (Mn), D is oxygen (O), 0.9≤a≤1, and 0≤b≤0.5, so that surface protection property is achieved and improved electrical conductivity is exhibited [Han, 0028, 0033]; MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 7, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, the rejection of claim 6 above, incorporated herein by reference, teaches the first coating layer defined by claim 7. Moon in view Kim as modified by Han (see ¶40 above) teaches a molar ratio of nickel to manganese is in a range of 5:5 up to 10:0, of which overlaps with the claimed ratio range, 1:9 to 9:1, thereby rendering the range obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 8, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, the rejection of claim 6 above, incorporated herein by reference, teaches the first coating layer defined by claim 8. Moon in view Kim as modified by Han (see ¶40 above) teaches a molar ratio of nickel to manganese is in a range of 5:5 up to 10:0, of which overlaps with the claimed ratio range, 5:5 to 9:1, thereby rendering the range obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 9, Moon as modified by Kim discloses the positive electrode active material defined by claim 1.
Moon remains silent regarding the first coating layer is included in an amount of 1 part by weight to 5 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the lithium transition metal oxide.
In view of the modification as set forth in the rejection of claim 6 above, Han further teaches that the coating layer is in a content, 1-10% by weight, based on a total weight of the positive electrode active material [0037], of which overlaps with the claimed range, 1-5 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the lithium transition metal oxide, thereby rendering the range obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
In view of the combined teachings of the foregoing prior art, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the shell composition of modified Moon so that it is in a content, 1-10% by weight, based on a total weight of the positive electrode active material, so that surface protection property is achieved [Han, 0039].
Additionally, if the coating layer exceeds 10% by weight, it may act as a resistance, thereby exhibiting an increase in the capacity reduction and a decrease in the rate characteristic, on the contrary however, if the coating layer content is less than 1% by weight, then the surface protection characteristic of the positive electrode active material cannot be exhibited and the effect of improving the press density is also lowered [Han, 0039]. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have known to optimize the content of the first coating layer with respect to the lithium transition metal oxide with a reasonable expectation for success given the explicit teachings of Han; see MPEP 2144.05(II).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon in view of Kim, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Baek et al. (US 2019/0165362 A1; “Baek”).
Regarding claim 11, Moon as modified by Kim teaches the positive electrode active material defined by claim 1.
Moon remains silent regarding the second coating layer is included in an amount of 0.01 part by weight to 1 part by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the lithium transition metal oxide.
Baek is directed to a positive electrode active material for a secondary battery, of which includes a core [Abstract, 0020]. The core includes a lithium composite metal oxide, with primary and secondary particles, and a surface treatment layer on the core [Abstract, 0020, 0031-0034]. The surface treatment layer is, inter alia, a boron oxide material [0038, 0053], that is in an amount 0.1 parts by weight to 0.8 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the lithium composite metal oxide [0052], of which is within the claimed range, 0.01 part by weight to 1 part by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the lithium transition metal oxide, thereby rendering the range obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Moon, Kim, and Baek each constitute prior art which is directly analogous to the claimed invention – ----positive electrode active material. In view of the combined teachings of the foregoing prior art, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the second composition that is disposed on the shell first composition of Moon to be in an amount 0.1 parts by weight to 0.8 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the lithium composite metal oxide, so that the lithium by-product may be effectively reduced, as well as, output and resistance characteristics may be improved [Baek, 0034-0035, 0040, 0055]. MPEP 2144.05(II)(B).
Regarding claim 12, Moon as modified by Kim teaches the positive electrode active material defined by claim 1.
Moon does not explicitly disclose the positive electrode active material having 1 wt.% or less of a lithium by-product remaining based on a total weight of the positive electrode active material.
In view of the rejection of claim 11 above, Baek further teaches the surface of the positive electrode active material has residual lithium by-product in an amount 0.4-0.55 wt.% based on a total weight of the positive electrode active material [0036, 0106], of which is within the claimed range, 1 wt.% or less of a lithium by-product remaining, thereby rendering the range obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
In view of the combined teachings of the foregoing prior art, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cathode active material of modified Moon so that it explicitly has residual lithium by-product in an amount 0.4-0.55 wt.%, thereby, reducing gas generation due to reaction with an electrolyte solution, and resulting in improved lithium secondary battery performance [Baek, 0036-0037]. MPEP 2144.05(II)(B).
Moreover, if the amount of the lithium by-product present on the surface of the positive electrode active material is greater than the above range, a reaction of a lithium salt included in the electrolyte solution with the lithium by-product continuously occurs to generate oxygen, HF, H2O, and other gases, and, as a result, performance of the lithium secondary battery may be adversely affected [Baek, 0036]. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have known to optimize the content of lithium by-product remaining with a reasonable expectation for success given the explicit teachings of Baek; see MPEP 2144.05(II).
Pertinent Prior Art
The following constitutes a list of prior art which are not relied upon herein, but are considered pertinent to the claimed invention and/or written description thereof. The prior art are purposely made of record hereinafter to facilitate compact/expedient prosecution, and consideration thereof is respectfully suggested.
Mitsumoto et al., US 2019/0058191 A1 – is directed towards a lithium metal composite oxide positive electrode active material [Abstract, 0065] with residual lithium present in secondary particles, in an amount 0.03-0.3 wt.% [Abstract, 0042-0051].
Kong et al., US 2023/0121699 A1 – is directed towards a high-Ni positive electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery [Abstract, 0011, 0046-0047, 0060]. Kong teaches that a boron-containing oxide may provide a surface protection effect for a lithium composite oxide to inhibit surface side reactions, thereby improving the stability of a positive electrode active material [0095]. Additionally, the coating layer may further include an additional oxide other than a boron-containing oxide, to reduce lithium-containing impurities present on the surface of the lithium composite oxide [0095].
Oh et al., US 2013/0224585 A1 – is directed towards a cathode active material including lithium manganese-based oxide in the form of a secondary particle in which a plurality of primary particles is agglomerated [Abstract, 0016, 0054]. Additionally, a second cathode active material may be further added to the cathode [0073], in an amount of less than 50% based on the total weight of the active material [0074].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA X. COLTON whose telephone number is (571)272-2210. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM.
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at (571)272-8935. 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.
/JENNA X. COLTON/Examiner, Art Unit 1782
/AARON AUSTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights