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
This is a final Office Action in response to Applicant’s remarks and amendments filed on 07/30/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending in the current Office Action. Claims 1-3, 5, 7, and 10-13 are amended. Claims 6 and 14-18 are withdrawn.
The claim objections set forth in the previous Office Action are withdrawn.
The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections set forth in the previous Office Action are withdrawn.
The 35 U.S.C. 112(d) rejection set forth in the previous Office Action is withdrawn.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection set forth in the previous Office Action is withdrawn and a new grounds of rejection is issued as necessitated by the amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the present application is characterized in that the growth of the primary particles constituting the lithium manganese-based oxide is induced in a selective direction by halogen doping, while Ahn does not teach or suggest any effect of inducing particle grown, and does not disclose any experimental results in which halogen doping was performed (see Applicant’s Remarks, pg. 9, para. 4 and pg. 10, last para.).
The examiner notes the claims are directed to a product and are therefore limited merely by structural limitations. Therefore, although Ahn does not adopt the approach of a first thermal treatment and second thermal treatment (see Applicant’s remarks, pg. 11, first para.), the prior art still satisfies the limitation “at least some of the oxygen present in the lithium manganese-based oxide is substituted with a halogen” of claim 1, and “wherein he halogen comprises fluorine” of claim 8, as addressed in the rejection below. Ahn need not disclose experimental results or experimentally demonstrate the results of halogen/fluorine doping as it teaches halogen doping, particularly fluorine, to be a common method in the art.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the contents of nickel and manganese have been considered but are moot due to the new grounds of rejection.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the improper combination of Dou and Yun have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant’s assertion that Yun directed to a positive active material for an all-solid-state battery is moot due to the new grounds of rejection (see Applicant’s remarks, pg. 13, para. 2). Applicant’s further asserts that Yun does not consider an OLO in which a C2/m phase and R3-m phase form a solid solution (See Applicant’s remarks, para. 3). However, Yun was not relied upon for the OLO material and instead was solely relied upon for the teaching of a barrier layer. Therefore, Yun’s teaching regarding the boron coating is proper.
Applicant conflates the assertion made during the interview conducted on July 7, 2026 (see Applicant’s remarks, para. 4-6). At no point was it stated that different types of materials while affecting chemical characteristics, do not affect physical characteristics. Rather, the teachings of Dou regarding physical characteristics can be applied despite being different in chemical composition to Ahn and Yamamoto, as the teachings are relevant and provide a skilled artisan motivation to combine. However, regarding the combination of Dou, materials being different is not enough to establish the combination of the cited references is not obvious.
Dou was relied upon to teach particle sizes (i.e. minor and major axis lengths) for the positive electrode material, which is a physical characteristic of the material. While Dou teaches a particle size for a transition oxide material (i.e. a non-OLO material), its teachings are still relevant regarding the benefits of particle (i.e. lithium-ion transmission performance, compact density, specific surface area, and mechanical strength, see previous Office Action, pg. 9, 2nd full para.), and thus Dou provides sufficient motivation for a skilled artisan to select within the overlapping ranges for the major and minor axis lengths of an OLO material. Furthermore, the teachings are directed towards physical constraints and effects (i.e. specific surface area, compact density, mechanical strength), making it reasonably expected that the taught characteristics would apply regardless even if the underlying material were different (i.e. NMC vs. OLO).
Similar to the discussion above and regarding Reference 1, the claims are directed to a product and thus the assertion that the shape and size of the primary particle vary significantly depending on calcination temperature is not relevant. The implied structure from the recited claim limitations remains the same. Dou, through its teachings, motivates a skilled artisan to control the minor and major axis of a positive electrode material.
Applicant’s assertion regarding the BET specific surface area is addressed in the rejection below.
In light of the discussion above, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection is withdrawn, and a new ground of rejection is issued as necessitated by the amendments.
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, 7-9, 11-12, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. (US 20120217435 A1) in view of Ahn et al. (US 10236508 B2), Dou et al. (US 20220181622 A1), and Yun et al. (US20220293913A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Yamamoto discloses a positive electrode active material ([0029]) comprising a lithium-based oxide (i.e. composite oxide comprising at least Li, Mn, and Co and/or Ni, and boron, [0029], Mn/(Ni+Co+Mn) is not less than 0.55, [0036]).
Yamamoto further discloses the compound having a crystal system belonging to a space group of R-3m represented by the formula LiMxMn1-xO2, where M is Ni and/or Co (i.e. phase belonging to R3-m space group, [0030]) and having a crystal system belonging to a space group of C2/m preferably including those compounds represented by Li2M’(1-y)MnyO3, where M’ is Ni and/or Co(i.e. phase belonging to an C2/m space group, [0032]).
As Yamamoto’s disclosed compound has a crystal system belonging to the R-3m space group and a crystal system belonging to an C2/m space group, a skilled artisan would reasonably expect the phases to be dissolved or complexed, as evidenced by Ahn (Li2MO3 phase is complexed on layer of a LiM’O2 phase, integrated into layered crystal structure, col. 6, lines 11-16).
Yamamoto further discloses wherein the lithium-based oxide comprises a secondary particle formed by aggregating a plurality of primary particles ([0041]). Furthermore, Yamamoto discloses the content of Ni is controlled such that the molar ratio of Ni/(Ni+Co+Mn) is preferably 0 to 0.45 ([0037]), which is fully within the claimed less than 50 mol% of content of nickel among all metal elements except lithium. When the molar ratio of Ni/(Ni+Co+Mn) is less than 0.45, the resulting positive electrode active substance particles tend to be deteriorated in thermal stability.
Yamamoto further discloses the content of Mn is controlled such that a molar ratio of Mn/(Ni+Co+Mn) is not less than 0.55 with an upper limit of 0.95 ([0036]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 50 mol% or more and less than 80 mol%.
Yamamoto further teaches that when the molar ratio of Mn/(Ni+Co+Mn) is less than 0.55, the compound having a crystal system belonging to a space group of C2/m tends to be formed in a sufficient amount so that the resulting positive electrode active substance particles tend to be deteriorated in charge/discharge capacity ([0036]). Similarly, Yamamoto discloses controlling the molar ratio of Co/(Ni+Co+Mn) to 0 to 0.45, as when it is below 0.45, the resulting active material particles tend to deteriorate in stability of their structure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, in optimizing the Ni and Co amounts, to have further selected and optimized within the overlapping portion of the ranges for the Mn/(Ni+Co+Mn) molar ratio, to achieve the desired balance between charge/discharge capacity, thermal stability, and structural stability of the positive electrode active substance particles.
Yamamoto further discloses the average primary particle diameter of the positive electrode active substance particles is not more than 3 µm, preferably 0.01 to 1.5 µm, and still more preferably 0.02 to 0.8 µm ([0041]), which overlaps with the claimed range of the average value of a minor axis lengths (i.e. diameter) of the primary particles of 130 nm to more and less than 400 nm.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected within the overlapping portion of the claimed range for the minor axis lengths of the positive electrode active material, with reasonable expectation of success in achieving a successful positive electrode active material (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Assuming, arguendo, Yamamoto does not disclose the average value of the minor axis lengths of the primary particles with sufficient specificity, the claim limitation would, nonetheless, still be obvious for the following reasons.
Dou teaches a lithium transition metal oxide where the major axis length (i.e. length) of the primary particles ranges from 100 to 1000 nm and a minor axis length (i.e. width) of the primary particles ranges from 50 nm to 400 nm ([0102]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 130 to 400 nm. Dou further teaches when the primary particles in the secondary particles satisfy this range, the positive electrode active material can have high lithium-ion transmission performance, relatively high compacted density, appropriate specific surface area and high mechanical strength ([103]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected within the overlapping portion of the ranges for the average value of minor axis lengths with reasonable expectation of success in achieving a positive electrode active material with satisfactory lithium-transmission performance, compacted density, specific surface area, and high mechanical strength of the positive active material.
Yamamoto further discloses the BET specific surface area of the positive electrode active substance particles is preferably 0.05 to 20 m2/g, more preferably 0.1 to 4 m2/g ([0040]), which encompasses the claimed range of 0.52 m2/g and less than 2.54 m2/g.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the encompassed portion of the range for the BET specific surface area, with reasonable expectation of success in achieving a successful positive electrode active material (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Yamamoto does not disclose at least some of the oxygen present in the lithium manganese-based oxide is substituted with a halogen.
Ahn teaches a similar overlithiated lithium transition metal oxide (col. 5, lines 61-67), wherein a fluorine compound may dope fluorine (i.e. a halogen) on the overlithiated lithium transition metal oxide for some of the oxygen atoms in the overlithiated transition metal oxide as it may further improve lifespan properties of the lithium battery (pg. 9, lines 8-13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have substituted some of the oxygen with a halogen, specifically fluorine, as claimed in claim 8, for the benefit of improving lifespan properties of the lithium battery, as taught by Ahn.
Yamamoto does not disclose a barrier layer that covers at least part of surfaces of the primary particles and/or the secondary particles is present.
Yun teaches a positive active material for a non-aqueous secondary battery ([0005];[0106]), comprising a second positive active material which may include a first boron coating portion present on the surface (e.g. outermost surface) of the secondary particles, and a second boron coating portion present on the surface of the primary coating inside the secondary coating ([0053]). Yun further teaches the second boron coating may be present in the internal portion rather than at the outer surface of the secondary particle, and may, for example, be coated along the interfaces of the primary particles inside the secondary particle and may be expressed as being coated at the grain boundaries ([0054]).
Furthermore, Yun teaches that when a suitable amount of boron is coated on the grain boundary inside the secondary particle and on the outer surface of the secondary particle, boron no longer acts as a resistance, and structural stability of the positive active material can be ensured, initial discharge capacity of the battery may be maintained and cycle-life characteristics may be improved ([0055]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have utilized the boron coating within and on the surface of the secondary particles of the positive active material, for the benefit of structural stability, maintaining initial discharge capacity, and improving cycle-life characteristics, as taught by Yun.
Regarding claims 2-4, modified Yamamoto discloses all claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Yamamoto discloses a minor axis length of primary particles being 130 to 400 nm, as rendered obvious above (Dou, [0102]), satisfying the claim limitation, “a minimum value of axis length measured for the primary particle exposed on the surface of the secondary particle is higher than 75 nm”, of claim 2, and the claim limitation, “a maximum value of the minor axis length measured for the primary particle exposed on a surface of the secondary particle is 500 nm or less” of claim 3. In all primary particles of modified Yamamoto satisfying the range of 130 to 400 nm for the minor axis length, the primary particles exposed on the surface of the secondary particle must necessarily also be within the disclosed range such that the claim limitations are met.
Similarly, the claim limitation, “wherein a proportion of primary particles having the minor axis length of 100 nm or more among the primary particles exposed on a surface of the secondary particle is more than 80% and 100% or less” of claim 4 is met as all the primary particles of modified Yamamoto possess a minor axis length between 130 to 400 nm, such that 100% of the primary particles exposed on the surface have a minor axis length greater than 100 nm.
Regarding claim 5, modified Yamamoto discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Yamamoto discloses the lithium transition metal oxide where the major axis length (i.e. length) of the primary particles ranges from 100 to 1000 nm and a minor axis length (i.e. width) of the primary particles ranges from 130 nm to 400 nm (Dou, [0102]), as rendered obvious above, wherein the primary particles include the primary particles exposed on a surface of the secondary particle.
Modified Yamamoto further teaches when the primary particles in the secondary particles satisfy this range, the positive electrode active material can have high lithium-ion transmission performance, relatively high compacted density, appropriate specific surface area and high mechanical strength (Dou, [0102-0103]).
Dou further teaches the desire to control an aspect ratio of the primary particle where the aspect ratio is a ratio of the major axis length to the minor axis length (i.e. ratio of the length to the width) of primary particle as it may lead to better improved energy density, high-temperature storage performance, and high-temperature cycling performance of the battery ([0017];[0104]).
The disclosed ranges for the minor and major axis lengths yields a range of an average value of a major axis lengths and minor axis lengths of the primary particles exposed on a surface of the secondary particle, ([major axis lengths + minor axis lengths]/2), to be 0.13 to 0.7 µm, which is wholly within the claimed range of 0.1 to 5 µm.
Regarding claim 7, modified Yamamoto discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Yamamoto’s disclosed compound would be expressed with a formula Li2M’(1-y) MnyO3 ∙LiMxMn1-xO2, where M and M’ are Ni and/or Co, 0 < x ≤ 1, and 0 < y ≤ 1 (Yamamoto, [0030];[0032]), as evidenced by the similar compound taught by Ahn (Ahn, col. 7, lines 58-69, Formula 3). Additionally, modified Yamamoto has at least some of the oxygen present in the lithium-based oxide substituted with a halogen, as rendered obvious above.
A skilled artisan would recognize that modified Yamamoto’s disclosed compound, expressed as a formula, would necessarily overlap with the claimed Formula 1-1.
Thus, modified Yamamoto satisfies claim 7.
Regarding claims 9 and 11, modified Yamamoto discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Yamamoto further discloses barrier layer compromising a first boron coating portion present on the surface (e.g. outermost surface) of the secondary particles, and a second boron coating portion present on the surface of the primary coating inside the secondary coating (Yun, [0053]), as rendered obvious above. Modified Yamamoto further discloses the second boron coating may be present in the internal portion rather than at the outer surface of the secondary particle, and may, for example, be coated along the interfaces of the primary particles inside the secondary particle and may be expressed as being coated at the grain boundaries (Yun, [0054]).
Thus, modified Yamamoto satisfies the claim limitation, “wherein the barrier layer is present to cover at least a part of the surface of the secondary particle” of claim 9, and “wherein the barrier layer is present to cover at least a part of the surface of the primary particles”, as claimed in claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, modified Yamamoto discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Yamamoto discloses a barrier layer (i.e. positive active material layer coated with boron compound, Yun, [0050]) wherein the boron compound may be boron oxide, lithium boron oxide or a combination thereof and may include, B2O2. B2O3, B4O3, B4O5. LiBO2, Li2B4O7, Li3BO3, or a combination thereof, all of which are disclosed with sufficient specificity and are within the scope of the claimed formula 2, LicBdM3eOf, of claim 12.
Regarding claims 19-20, modified Yamamoto discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Yamamoto further discloses a positive electrode comprising the positive electrode active material of claim 1 (Yamamoto, [0001]), as claimed in claim 19, and a lithium secondary battery (Yamamoto, [0002]; [0025]) using the positive electrode of claim 19, as claimed in claim 20.
Claims 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. (US 20120217435 A1) in view of Ahn et al. (US 10236508 B2), Dou et al. (US 20220181622 A1), and Yun et al. (US20220293913A1), as applied to claims 9 and 12 above, and in further view of Liu et al. (JP 2016139583 A).
Regarding claims 10 and 13, modified Yamamoto discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Yamamoto further discloses the weight of the first boron coating (i.e. on surface of secondary particles) may be greater than the weight of the second boron coating (i.e. on the surface of primary particles within the secondary particles), where the first boron coating may be around 70 wt% to 98 wt%, and the second boron coating may be around 2 wt% to 30 wt% (Yun, [0053];[0056]).
While modified Yamamoto does not explicitly disclose the positive electrode active material wherein a gradient in which the concentration of boron decreases from the barrier layer to a core of the lithium manages-based oxide is formed, a skilled artisan would recognize the greater wt% of boron on the surface of the secondary particles compared to the wt of boron on the surface of the primary particles suggests a decrease in concentration of boron from the surface of the secondary particles to the surface of the primary particles.
Liu teaches a similar cathode active material (i.e. LizNiaCObMncO2, [0012]) that is metal-gradient-doped where the modifying metal may be boron ([0001]; [0012]). Liu further teaches when the modifying metal is relatively concentrated on the surface of the positive electrode material powder, and exhibits a concentration of continuity towards the core, a continuous concentration dope gradient is formed ([0012]). Furthermore, Liu teaches in having a relatively high concentration of the modifying metal on the surface, the reactivity of the active material to the electrolyte is lowered, improving operation stability of the battery ([0012]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have improved the barrier layer of modified Yamamoto such that a gradient in which the concentration of B decreases from the barrier layer to a core of the lithium transition manganese oxide is formed, as claimed in claim 13, for the benefit of lowering the reactivity of the active material with the electrolyte and improving operation stability of the overall battery, as taught by Liu.
Modified Yamamoto further discloses the barrier layer is present on the outermost surface of the secondary particle and along the inner grain boundaries or between the primary particles in the inner portion of the secondary particles (Yun, [0055]) which is within the scope of the claimed “wherein the grain boundary is defined between adjacent primary particles” of claim 10.
Modified Yamamoto does not explicitly disclose the barrier layer being present in a diffused state from a surface portion of the secondary particle along the grain boundary.
However, in disclosing a gradient, modified Yamamoto reasonably also discloses a diffused state given that a gradient entails mass shifted from a high-concentration area to a low-concentration area, therefore rendering obvious the claim limitation, “barrier layer is present in a diffused state from a surface portion to a central portion of the secondary particle along the grain boundary” of claim 10.
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 ESTHER J TAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3479. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1292. 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.
/E.J.T./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 10/13/2026
