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 preliminary amendment filed on 10/25/2023 is entered and acknowledged by the Examiner. Claims 1-9 have been amended. Claims 1-10 are currently pending in the instant application.
Priority
This application is a 371 of PCT/KR2022/006725 (filed on 05/11/2022). Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Republic of Korea on 05/11/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed on 10/25/2023, 12/17/2024, 04/07/2025, and 09/16/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and have been considered by the examiner. An initialed copy accompanies this Office Action.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20180015046 A (hereinafter HO).
With respect to claim 1, HO disclose a lithium complex oxide for lithium secondary battery positive active material and a method of preparing the same (See Title). HO discloses that the lithium complex oxide particle has an interplanar distance (interfacial distance) of a crystalline structure is different inside secondary particles (inside portions) and on surface portions of the secondary particles to improve capacity, resistance, and lifespan properties (See Abstract and [0002]). In one embodiment, HO exemplify a lithium complex oxide particle of having a formula of:
Li1.00Ni0.933Co0.05Al0.015Mg0.001Ti0.001O2
having the interplanar distance of the surface portion is 4.85 nm and the interplanar distance of the inside portion is 4.83 nm (See Comparative Example 4 at [0139], [0145], and [0147]). The lithium complex oxide particle of HO has a surface interplanar spacing of 003 (4.85 nm) larger than an inside interplanar spacing of 003 (4.83 nm).
HO failed to anticipate the instant claim because the lithium complex oxide particle having surface interplanar spacing of 003 larger than an inside interplanar spacing of 003 does not contain manganese (Mn) in an amount greater than 0 and less than or equal to 0.40, i.e., 0<z≤0.4, and does not meet the claimed formula 1 as required in claim 1.
However, HO disclose that the lithium complex oxide particle can substitute aluminum (Al) with manganese (Mn) in the lithium transition metal oxide represented by chemical formula 1:
LiX1Ni1-(x1+y1+z1)Cox1M1y1M2z1M3r1Oa
where M1 is Mn or Al, M2 and M3 are metals selected from the group consisting of Al, Ba, B, Co, Ce, Cr, F, Li, Mg, Mn, Mo, P, Sr, Ti, and Zr, and 0.95≤X1≤1.05, 1.50≤a≤2.1, 0.02≤x1≤0.25, 0.01≤y1≤0.20, 0≤z1≤0.20, and 0≤r1≤0.20 (Emphasis added; See [0023] and [0024]). The chemical formula 1 of HO fulfills the claimed formula 1 when M1 is Mn.
Therefore, a person skilled in the art can have a reasonable expectation of the manganese-containing lithium complex oxide particle of HO to have a surface interplanar spacing of 003 larger than an inside interplanar spacing of 003 by substituting the Al for Mn in the formula 1 of lithium complex oxide particle because such as manganese-containing lithium complex oxide particle is suggested by HO. The burden is upon the applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 594.
Regarding claim 2, HO discloses that the lithium complex oxide particle has an interplanar distance of the surface portion is 4.85 nm and an interplanar distance of the inside portion is 4.83 nm (See Comparative Example 4 at [0139], [0145], and [0147]). The interplanar distance difference between the surface portion and the inside portion is 0.02 nm and is 0.005 nm or more as claimed.
Regarding claim 3, The interplanar distances of the surface portion and inside portion are an average measurement between 10 adjacent planes (See [0056], [0066], [0078]). When the measurement of the surface portion and the inside portion are between 1 adjacent planes, the interplanar distance would be 10 fold less. The interplanar distances of the surface portion would be 0.485 nm and the inside portion would be 0.483 nm.
Regarding claim 4, HO disclose that the lithium complex oxide particle is represented by chemical formula 1 where M1 can be Mn and 0.95≤X1≤1.05, 1.50≤a≤2.1, 0.02≤x1≤0.25, 0.01≤y1≤0.20, 0≤z1≤0.20, and 0≤r1≤0.20 (See [0023] and [0024]). The proportions of Ni, Co, and Mn suggested by HO overlap with the instant claimed proportions.
Regarding claim 5, HO discloses a method for preparing the positive active material comprising of a co-precipitation reaction of nickle cobalt hydroxide NiCo(OH)2 precursor (See [0047] and [0048]). The NiCo(OH)2 precursor is a multilayer-structure with Ni and Co precipitating in different regions as they are co-precipitated. HO discloses that the method also comprises a step of mixing the precursor with lithium compounds and subjecting the mixture to heat treatment (sintering) (See [0048]).
Claims 6-8 are drawn to Ni, Mn, and Co precipitation (metal coating) arrangements. HO does not explicitly disclose the method of these specific Ni, Mn, and Co precipitation arrangements. However, HO discloses a positive active material containing Ni, Mn, and Co prepared by co-precipitation reaction (See Claim 1 above and [0048]). HO also discloses that the positive active material can be coated with multiple metals, i.e., Co and Ti (See [0056]). It would have been obvious for a skilled artisan at the time the invention was filed to prepare the positive active material by precipitating the Ni, Mn, and Co in desirable arrangement in order to improve capacity, resistance and lifespan properties of the battery.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, HO discloses a cathode active (positive active) material for lithium secondary battery (See [0001 and [0048]).
In view of the foregoing, the above claims have failed to patentably distinguish over the applied art.
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 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHANH TUAN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8082. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM 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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at (571) 272-2817. 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.
/KHANH T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761