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 response and amendments filed on 05/08/2026. Claims 1 is amended. Claim 3 is cancelled. Claims 6-9 are new. Claims 1-2, and 4-9 are pending in the current Office Action.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections set forth in the previous Office Action are maintained, with the rejection of claim 1 rewritten to address the amendments.
The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 3 set forth in the previous Office Action is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the Examiner conflates internal porosity and bulk porosity. As addressed in the bridging paragraph of 6-7 of the previous Office Action mailed 01/12/2026, Thomas-Alyea discloses an internal porosity gradient. Paragraphs [0077]-[0078] of Thomas Alyea were not relied upon for the rejection of the limitation regarding the internal porosity, nor was the was range of “about 10% to 70%” from [0138] relied upon.
Applicant further argues the Examiner failed to establish particle internal porosity as a result-effective variable. On page 7 of the previous Office Action, the Examiner establishes internal porosity as a result-effective variable as Thomas-Alyea discloses a high porosity, inclusive of internal porosity, allows for higher specific surface area and low volumetric charge transfer, resulting in greater power capacity, while too high of a porosity will result in a structurally unstable framework. Thus, a skilled artisan would have reason to optimize the internal porosity to achieve the desired balance between specific surface area, volumetric charge transfer, and structural stability.
While Thomas-Alyea does not disclose a specific internal porosity value, Thomas-Alyea, in disclosing an internal porosity gradient between upper and lower layers, is expected to have some level of internal porosity that encompasses or overlaps with the claimed range. Thus, Applicant’s arguments regarding conflation of internal and bulk porosity and the Examiner’s failure to establish internal porosity as a result-effective variable are rendered unpersuasive.
Applicant argues the Examiner failed to adequately address the claim limitation “in the second Ni content lithium complex oxide, a larger space than an average cross-sectional area of the primary particles does not exist inside the secondary particle in a cross sectional observation image observed with an electron microscope” of claim 1. The previous Office Action relies on [22] of Tamura to teach minimizing voids. Tamura defines porosity as the ratio of the area of the void inside the particle to the area of the particle through a visual observation by electron microscopic image (Tamura, [22]). In minimizing the porosity (i.e. average porosity is 5% or less), the cracking of particles during charge and discharge are further reduced, improving life characteristics. Through this teaching, one of ordinary skill would understand to minimize the porosity, as defined by Tamura, and would have arrived at the claimed “in the second Ni content lithium complex oxide, a larger space than the average cross-sectional area of the primary particle not estimating inside a cross-sectional observation” since the ratio of the area of the void inside to particle to the area of the particle would be 5% or less, in order to achieve the desired effect of reducing cracking, as taught by Tamura. Thus, Applicant’s argument regarding the space existing inside the secondary particle is not found persuasive.
Applicant’s argument regarding Yun’s disclosed covering element having a different measurement basis is not relevant as Yun’s disclose range, despite being based on a 100 mol% of the positive active material, once converted to be based on 100% of the metal elements, encompasses the claimed range. For further clarification, the calculations are provided below.
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant argues the instant specification demonstrates criticality, specifically referring to Table 1 of the instant specification.
Examiner acknowledges that, based on the date in Table 1, Example 1, a criticality of a lower boundary of porosity of 2% for the second Ni content lithium complex oxide is established, and detection of a covering element inside the secondary particle resulted in relatively lower gas generation than comparative example 1. However, Example 1 only establishes such criticality when the first Ni content lithium complex oxide has a porosity of 1%. As the claimed range for the first Ni content lithium complex oxide is 2% or less, it is not clear whether the claim is commensurate in scope with the criticality argument due to the presence of other factors.
Similarly, Applicant’s argument regarding the limitation “in the second Ni content lithium complex oxide, a larger space than an average cross-sectional area of the primary particles does not exist inside the secondary particle”, referring to Example 2 in Table 1, may establish criticality regarding that limitation through exhibiting lower levels of gas when compared to Comparative Example 2. However, as with Example 1, Example 2 establishes criticality when the first Ni content lithium complex oxide has a porosity of 1%, and it is unclear whether the claim is commensurate with in scope with the criticality argument.
Regarding applicant’s argument regarding the limitation, “the first Ni content lithium complex oxide has a porosity of less than 2%” and reliance on Examples 1 through 4 of Table 1, criticality is established for porosity of 1% for the first Ni content lithium complex oxide, rather than the claimed upper limit of 2% porosity. Furthermore, similar to the criticality arguments above, Examples 1-4 and 5-6 establish criticality for 1% when the covering element source is borate, aluminum oxide, and tungsten oxide, respectively, while the claimed invention claims the covering element to include at least one kind of element among elements that belong to Group 6 or Group 13. Thus, it appears the claimed invention is incommensurate with the scope of the invention disclosed in the instant specification.
Regarding the newly incorporated limitation that “the covering element exists on a surface of the primary particle inside the secondary particle”, Examples 1 through 4 compared to Comparative Example 1 in Table 1 establish the effect of the of the covering element inside the secondary particle. Nevertheless, similar to the criticality arguments addressed above, Examples 1-4 and Comparative Example 1 attain the results shown when the porosity of the first Ni content lithium complex oxide is 1%, and when the covering element source is borate. Thus, it appears the claimed invention is incommensurate with the scope of the invention disclosed in the instant specification, and furthermore, that the prior art rejection as outlined in the previous Office Action still reads on the new claim limitation.
Therefore, even if the data supports the criticality of the claimed range of the porosity of the second Ni content lithium complex oxide, covering element, and “space larger than average cross-sectional area of the primary particles”, it is not clear whether the claim is commensurate in scope with the criticality argument due to the presence of other factors that appear to also contribute to the advantageous results argued by the applicant to be achieved by the claimed porosity ratio, specifically suppressing gas generation and achieving high energy density. That is, based on Table 2, Examples 7-9, the ratio of the thickness of the positive electrode upper layer to the thickness of the entire positive electrode active material layer also appears to have an effect on gas generation and energy density. Additionally, the claim limitation further claims the covering element may be at least one kind of element belonging to Group 6 or Group 13, but the instant specifications fails to support this as the examples of Table 1 only include borate, aluminum oxide, and tungsten oxide as the covering element source, and thus does not include the entirety of the claimed Markush group. Furthermore, [0031] and [0038] of the instant specification further notes desired particles sizes for the Ni content lithium complex oxide which further have an impact on gas generation and energy density. The claimed positive electrode also encompasses any Ni content lithium complex oxide while [0058], [0060], and [0065] of the instant specification specifically discloses LiNi0.8Co0.1-Mn0.1O2 as being used for the positive electrode materials for Examples 1-6 and Comparative Examples 1-3.
Therefore, in light of the discussion above and the prior art teaching advantageous effects that correspond to the effects argued by the applicant (Thomas-Alyea: [0103];[0110]), applicant’s arguments regarding the criticality of the claimed range are rendered unpersuasive.
As such, in light of the above discussion, applicant’s arguments are rendered unpersuasive and the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection made in view of Thomas-Alyea, Ko, and Yun is maintained.
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 1-2, 4-6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas-Alyea et al. (US 20120328942 A1), in view of Ko et al. (US 20230253547 A1), Yun (US 20220069301 A1), and Tamura (JP 2016149258 A).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 6, Thomas-Alyea discloses an electrode for a non-aqueous (i.e. nonaqueous solvents, [0147]) secondary battery (i.e. lithium-ion battery, [0051] and [0152]), comprising a positive electrode ([0153]), negative electrode ([0153]), non-aqueous electrolyte ([0147]), wherein the positive electrode includes a positive active material layer supported by the positive electrode current collector (i.e. electrode is disposed on the current collector, Abstract, [0133]).
Thomas-Alyea further discloses a positive electrode active material layer with a multilayer structure including a lower layer (i.e. back face closest to current collector, Abstract), and an upper layer disposed at a position further from the positive electrode current collector than the lower layer (i.e. front face furthest from the current collector, Abstract).
Thomas-Alyea discloses a positive electrode material that may include LiMO2, where M may include a mixture of Co, Mn, and Ni or other metal, as well as other positive-electrode materials known in the art including LiNiO2 which appears to be disclosed with sufficient specificity ([0143]) thus being within the scope of the claimed “the positive electrode lower layer includes a first positive electrode active material including a first Ni content lithium complex oxide containing 70 mol% or more of nickel relative to metal elements other than lithium” and “the positive electrode lower layer includes a second positive electrode active material including a second Ni content lithium complex oxide containing 70 mol% or more of nickel relative to metal elements other than lithium.”
Assuming, arguendo, that applicant is able to convincingly argue that Thomas-Alyea does not disclose LiNiO2 with sufficient specificity, the claim limitations would, nonetheless, still be obvious for the following reasons. Ko teaches a cathode active material containing lithium-nickel composite metal oxide with a nickel content of about 80 mol% or more among metals except for lithium ([0063]-[0064]), which is within the scope of the claim limitations. Ko teaches the employment of secondary particles of lithium transition metal oxide with an 80 mol% nickel or greater can obtain high power and capacitance characteristics for the positive electrode ([0069]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize as the positive electrode active materials of Thomas- Alyea lithium-nickel composite metal oxide with nickel content of about 80 mol% or more among metals except for lithium as taught by Ko to ensure a positive electrode with high power and capacitance characteristics.
Thomas-Alyea does not to disclose a covering element that includes at least one kind of element among elements belonging to Group 6 or 13 that is attached to the second Ni content lithium complex oxide.
Ko teaches a coating layer on the first and second active material particles and provides a list of suitable elements for the coating layer such as Al, Ti, Ba, Zr, Si, B, Mg, P, W or an alloy thereof, or an oxide thereof, used alone or in combination ([0087]), thus rendering the selection of B obvious with a reasonable expectation that such selection would lead to a successful coating layer, reading on claim 2. Ko teaches the coating passivates the active material particles, increasing stability and improving lifespan against penetration of an external object ([0087]). By including such coating elements, Ko renders obvious the claim limitation in which the covering element belongs to Group 6 or 13 as one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed covering elements overlaps with those listed in Ko, and that such elements are utilized as covering elements in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize a covering element attached to the second Ni content lithium complex oxide as taught by Ko for the benefit of increasing stability of the electrode and improving lifespan from penetration of an external object.
Thomas-Alyea further discloses aggregate particles, referring to a collection of fused primary particles ([0075]), which reads on the claim limitation, “the second Ni content lithium complex oxide is a secondary particle in which primary particles are aggregated”.
Thomas-Alyea further discloses an electrode where the particle internal porosity decreases from the front to the back of the electrode, with the upper layer (i.e. electrode front face, close to separator, [0074]) being of higher porosity than the lower layer (i.e. electrode back face, near current collector, [0074]).
Thomas-Alyea discloses a porosity gradient provides a more uniform intercalation/de-
intercalation reaction rate, thus improving ion transport ([0125]). Thomas-Alyea further discloses a high porosity is advantageous due to a higher specific surface area and low volumetric charge transfer, resulting in a greater power capacity, all of which are desirable characteristics closer to the separator ([0103]; [0111]). Furthermore, Thomas-Alyea discloses too high of a porosity will result in a structurally unstable framework ([0138]). Conversely, the lower layer has a lower porosity than the upper layer and thus a lower specific surface area and a greater amount of active material resulting in a greater energy density ([0103]).
While Thomas-Alyea does not explicitly disclose “a first Ni content lithium complex
oxide with a porosity of less than 2%”, “a second Ni content lithium complex oxide porosity of
2% or more and 20% or less”, “in the second Ni content lithium complex oxide, a larger space
than the average cross-sectional area of the primary particle not existing inside the secondary
particle in a cross-sectional observation” as claimed in claim 1, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have arrived at these limitations by way of routine optimization in order to ensure that the lower layer possesses a desired energy density, the upper layer possesses a desired volumetric charge transfer, and to achieve a desired overall balance between these properties as well as avoid structural instability (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Similarly, while Thomas-Alyea does not explicitly disclose “wherein the first Ni content lithium complex oxide has a porosity of 1% or less, and the second Ni content lithium complex oxide has a porosity of 5% or more and 20% or less” as claimed in claim 6, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have arrived at these limitations by way of routine optimization in order to ensure that the lower layer possesses a desired energy density, the upper layer possesses a desired volumetric charge transfer, and to achieve a desired overall balance between these properties as well as avoid structural instability (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Further regarding the limitation, “in the second Ni content lithium complex oxide, a larger space than the average cross-sectional area of the primary particle not existing inside the secondary particle in a cross-sectional observation”, because Tamura teaches minimizing the voids inside the particles makes them less prone to cracking (i.e. porosity as the ratio between area of void to area of particle by observation photograph by electron microscopic image is 5% or less, [22]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have arrived at the claimed “in the second Ni content lithium complex oxide, a larger space than the average cross-sectional area of the primary particle not existing inside the secondary particle in a cross-sectional observation” in an effort to ensure the second Ni content lithium complex oxide is less prone to cracking.
Modified Thomas-Alyea discloses active material particles with a coating layer results in increased stability of the electrode and improves lifespan from penetration of an external object (Ko:[0087]). Also, the skilled artisan recognizes that too much of the covering element proportionally results in less active material which decreases energy density by necessity. Therefore, while Thomas-Alyea does not explicitly disclose the claimed “covering element contained by 0.5 mol% or more and 3 mol% or less when a total of metal elements of the second Ni content lithium complex oxide is 100 mol%”, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have optimized the amount of covering element as claimed in an effort to achieve a desired balance between overall stability, lifespan, and energy density (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Furthermore, Yun teaches a total amount of first and second boron coating portion that may be about 0.1 mol% to about 3 mol% based on 100 mol% of the positive active material ([0056]) which overlaps and/or encompasses the claimed range. Yun teaches a coating amount outside this range may have negative impacts on the initial discharge capacity and cycle-life characteristics of the positive electrode ([0056]). Yun further teaches an excessive amount of boron coating will increase resistance of the active material ([0056]).
Therefore, it would have further been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected and optimized within the overlapping/encompassed portion of the ranges for the amount of covering element in modified Thomas-Alyea in order to achieve a desired balance between initial discharge capacity, cycle life characteristics, and electrode resistance.
Yun further teaches a first boron coating portion on a surface of the secondary particle, and a second boron coating portion on a surface of the primary particles inside the secondary particle (Abstract).
Yun teaches a boron coating only on the surface of an active material contributes to the battery resistance and decreases capacity and cycle-life. In coating the surface of both primary and secondary particles with boron, as disclosed in Yun, the active material may achieve high capacity and improved cycle-life characteristics without a negative impact on initial discharge capacity ([0083]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to improve modified Thomas-Alyea by utilizing a covering element on the surface of the primary particle inside the secondary particle as taught
by Yun to ensure a positive electrode active material with a high capacity and improved cycle-life characteristics without negatively impacting initial discharge capacity or increasing
resistance.
Regarding claims 4 and 8, modified Thomas-Alyea discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Thomas-Alyea teaches ion flux and electrochemical reaction rate at discharge is highest
in the upper layer of the electrode ([0122]). Thomas-Alyea further teaches high energy density
is desired in the electrode lower layer and attained through a lower porosity, contributing to the overall electrode energy density ([0103]; [0138];[0140]).
A skilled artisan would recognize too thick of an upper layer and too thin of a lower
layer, while resulting in an electrode with a high electrochemical reaction rate and ion flux, risks
too great an electrochemical reaction rate, a lack of structural stability, and a reduced overall
energy density. Conversely, too thin of an upper layer and too thick of a lower layer would
ensure greater structural stability and overall energy density for the electrode, but would sacrifice a satisfactory electrochemical reaction rate and ion flux. Therefore, while Thomas-Alyea does not explicitly disclose “a ratio of thickness of the positive electrode upper layer to an entire thickness of the positive electrode active material layer is 0.1 or more and 0.5 or less” of claim 4, or “the ratio of thickness of the positive electrode upper layer to the entire thickness of the positive electrode active material is 0.1 or more and 0.2 or less” of claim 8, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the relative thickness of the positive electrode upper layer to an entire thickness of the positive electrode material layer to within the claimed range in an effort to arrive at the desired balance between structural stability, overall energy density, ion flux, and electrochemical reaction rate of the electrode (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Regarding claim 5, modified Thomas-Alyea discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Thomas-Alyea discloses a positive electrode material that may include LiMO2,
where M may include a mixture of Co, Mn, and Ni or other metal, as well as other positive-
electrode materials known in the art ([0143]).
Modified Thomas-Alyea does not disclose the nonaqueous secondary battery wherein at least one of the Ni content lithium complex oxides is a lithium-nickel-manganese complex oxide.
Ko teaches a first cathode active material that may be a lithium-nickel-cobalt-manganese complex oxide ([0066]-[0068]). Ko further teaches a positive electrode material with a molar ratio of nickel:cobalt:manganese of 8:1:1 for the first cathode active material ([0071]). Ko teaches nickel is often associated with output and/or capacity for lithium secondary batteries and having a molar ratio of 0.8 nickel will result in increased capacity and output ([0069]; [0071]). Furthermore, Ko teaches manganese is a metal associated with mechanical and electrical stabilities for lithium batteries, while cobalt is associated with conductivity and resistance in lithium batteries ([0070]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further improve modified Thomas-Alyea with the teachings of Ko by utilizing a lithium-nickel-cobalt-manganese complex oxide as one of the Ni content lithium complex oxides to ensure reinforced conductivity and lifespan characteristics as well as increased capacity and output for the positive electrode.
Regarding claim 9, modified Thomas-Alyea discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Thomas-Alyea discloses the covering element attached to the second Ni content lithium complex oxide, as rendered obvious above. The first Ni content lithium complex oxide, as established above, does not have a covering element, and thus modified Thomas-Alyea satisfies claim 9.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas-Alyea et al. (US 20120328942 A1), in view of Ko et al. (US 20230253547 A1), Yun (US 20220069301 A1), and Tamura (JP 2016149258 A), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Takeuchi et al. (JP 4697504 B2).
Regarding claim 7, modified Thomas-Alyea discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Thomas-Alyea further discloses the electrode including a particle size gradient (Thomas-Alyea, [0099], Fig. 1) wherein the upper layer (i.e. front of electrode, further from current collector, Abstract, [0099]) has smaller particles with average particle size about 0.1 µm to 10 µm (Thomas-Alyea, [0099]), which encompasses the claimed range of 1 µm to 3 µm of the average particle size of the second Ni content lithium complex oxide. Furthermore, modified Thomas-Alyea discloses lower layer (i.e. back of electrode, closer to current collector, Abstract, [0099]) having larger particle sizes, having an average particle of 5 µm to 50 µm ([0099]), which encompasses the claimed range of 10 µm to 20 µm for the average particle size of the first Ni content lithium complex oxide.
Modified Thomas-Alyea further discloses that the variation of the particle sizes provides increased mechanical robustness at the separator/electrode interface and adjacent electrode regions.
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 particle size of the first Ni content lithium complex oxide, with reasonable expectation of achieving an electrode with mechanical robustness at the separator/electrode interface and adjacent electrode regions.
Modified Thomas-Alyea does not disclose the average particle size to be the average particle size of primary particles of the second Ni content lithium complex oxide.
Takeuchi teaches a similar lithium-nickel composite oxide (pg. 1, lines 16) that has a particle structure in which primary particles having an average particle diameter of 1 µm or less are aggregated to form secondary particles (pg. 1, line 56-50). Takeuchi further teaches when the average particle diameter of the primary particles is less than 1 µm, the surface area involved in the reaction with the electrolyte increases, so that decomposition reaction of the electrolyte is promoted, the internal resistance of the battery increases, and the capacity decreases (pg. 3, lines 14-17). Furthermore, Takeuchi teaches if the average particle diameter of the primary particles exceed 4 µm, the secondary particles also increase in size which makes it difficult for uniform coating of the active material. Takeuchi’s taught range of 1 to 4 µm encompasses the claimed range of 1 to 3 µm.
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 and optimized within the overlapping portion of the ranges of the primary particle average diameter to achieve the desired balance between surface area, capacity, and coating characteristics.
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-4:30PM.
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
/Haroon S. Sheikh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
Prosecution Insights