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 .
The Applicant has amended independent claim 1; and canceled claims 4, 7. The pending claims are claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-20.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/18/2025 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 6, 8-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okuda et al., JP 2001243949, in view of Ryu et al., US 20120107686.
Regarding claim 1, Okuda et al., teaches a positive electrode active material (abstract), comprising: a lithium-based composite oxide (lithium transition metal composite oxide) (0001); a primary particle in which a plurality of primary particles are aggregated (0005; 0009) and a secondary particle (0005; 0021); a ratio (x2/xl) of an average particle size (x2) of secondary particles to an average particle size (xl) of primary particles is 1 or more and 5 or less (0009; 0021; 0025).
Okuda does not teach wherein an Ni occupancy in an Li 3a site obtained from the Rietveld analysis of the X-ray diffraction of the secondary particle is more than 0.53% and less than 6.44%.
However, a prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979).
Okuda et al., teaches a cation-mixing layer (binder; conductive material) (0005; 0011) present on a surface of the primary particles and/or the secondary particle (0005; 0013).
Okuda does not teach Formula 2.
Ryu et al., teaches Formulas 1 and 2:
[0013] In order to accomplish the above objects, the present invention provides a positive electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery, comprising a lithium composite oxide represented by Chemical Formula 1 below which is surface-modified using carbon or an organic compound.
LiNi1-xMxO2 <Chemical Formula 1>
[0014] (wherein M represents any one or a combination of two elements selected from the group consisting of Co, Al, Mn, Mg, Fe, Cu, Ti, Sn and Cr, and 0.96≦x≦1.05).
[0015] In particular, the lithium composite oxide represented by Chemical Formula 1 may be a lithium composite oxide represented by Chemical Formula 2 below.
Lix[Ni1-y-zCOyAlz]O2 <Chemical Formula 2>
[0016] (wherein 0.96≦x≦1.05, 0≦y≦0.2, 0≦z≦0.1)
[0017] In addition, the present invention provides a lithium secondary battery comprising the above positive electrode active material.”
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to insert the Formula 2 compound and the Formula 1 compound into the positive electrode active material. It would be advantageous to insert the teachings of Ryu et al., into the teachings of Okuda because Ryu et al., teaches:
“[0018] According to the present invention, a positive electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery can be improved in terms of conductivity so that electrons can freely flow, and also can have increased stability, compared to conventional positive electrode active materials. In a lithium secondary battery comprising the positive electrode active material, carbon functions as a mechanically or (electro)chemically protective shell, thus exhibiting high stability including suppression of the production of impurities, protection against acids, and formation of a structural framework during continuous charging/discharging or rapid charging/discharging, and simultaneously exhibiting high-rate capability.”
Additionally, Okuda et al., teaches the cation-mixing layer has a crystal structure (0005; 0010; 0015) selected from a layered structure (0018-0019), rock salt structure (0018-0019).
Regarding claim 2, Okuda et al., teaches a cation-mixing layer (mixing ratio) is present on the surface of the primary particle (0011; 0026).
Okuda et al., does not teach a ratio (dl/xl) of the thickness (dl) of the cation-mixing layer to the average particle size (xl) of primary particles is more than 0.0008 and less than 0.0052.
However, a prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979).
Regarding claim 3, Okuda et al., does not teach a thickness (dl) of the cation-mixing layer which is present on the surface of the primary particle, is more than 0.00023 um and less than 0.01204 um.
However, a prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979).
Regarding claim 5, Okuda et al., teaches a cation-mixing layer (0005; 0010; 0015).
Okuda does not teach cation mixing layer is present on the surface of the secondary particle, and a ratio (d2/x2) of the thickness (d2) of the cation-mixing layer to the average particle size (x2) of secondary particles is more than 0.00014 and less than 0.00281.
However, a prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979).
Regarding claim 6, Okuda et al., does not teach a thickness (d2) of the cation-mixing layer present on surface of secondary particle, which is more than 0.00043 um and less than 0.01208 um.
However, a prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979).
Regarding claim 8, Okuda et al., teaches the positive electrode active material is an assembly of secondary particles (0005; 0013; 0021; 0025) having different grain boundary (periphery) density (0024): Grain boundary density = (the number of interfaces between primary particles in secondary particle/the number of primary particles constituting secondary particle) (average of 100 to 150 primary particles per secondary particle) (0024).
Regarding claim 9, Okuda et al., teaches the proportion of secondary particles having a grain boundary (periphery) density (0024) of 0.5 or less among the plurality of secondary particles constituting the positive electrode active material is 30% or more (80%) (0024): Grain boundary density = (the number of interfaces between primary particles in secondary particle/the number of primary particles constituting secondary particle) (average of 100 to 150 primary particles per secondary particle) (0024).
Regarding claim 10, Okuda et al., teaches the proportion of secondary particles having a grain boundary (periphery) density (0024) of 0.5 or less among the plurality of secondary particles constituting the positive electrode active material is less than 84% (80%) (0024):Grain boundary density = (the number of interfaces between primary particles in secondary particle/the number of primary particles constituting secondary particle) (average of 100 to 150 primary particles per secondary particle) (0024).
Regarding claim 11, Okuda et al., teaches the positive electrode active material comprises a first aggregate composed of one or two primary particles (0020), a second aggregate composed of three to six primary particles (0020), and a third aggregate composed of seven to ten primary particles (0044).
Okuda does not teach wherein the proportion of the first aggregate among the positive electrode active material is 30% or more.
However, a prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979).
Regarding claim 12, Okuda et al., teaches the primary particle has an average particle size of 1.0 um to 5.0 um (3 um; 5 um) (0045; 0046).
Regarding claim13, Okuda et al., teaches the secondary particle has an average particle size of about 20.0 um (0045).
Regarding claim 14, Okuda et al., teaches the positive electrode active material comprises a small secondary particle and a large secondary particle, wherein the small secondary particle has an average particle size of 1.0 um to 5.0 um (3 um; 5 um) (0045; 0046), and the large secondary particle has an average particle size of about 20.0 um (0045).
Regarding claim 15, Okuda et al., teaches an average particle of an assembly of the secondary particles in which the small secondary particles and the large secondary particles are mixed is 3.0 um to 18.0 um (0.2 um to 10 um) (0026).
Regarding claim 16, Okuda et al., teaches the lithium- based composite oxide is represented by Formula 1 below:
(0042) “Lithium Transition Metal Composite Oxide of the Example The lithium transition metal composite oxide of the example is a layered rock-salt structure lithium nickel composite oxide represented by the composition formula LiNi0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2. 607 This lithium nickel composite oxide was produced as follows. First, LiOH was used as a lithium source, Ni(OH)2 as a nickel source, Co(NO3)2 as a cobalt source, and Al(OH)3 as an aluminum source, and these were mixed so that the molar ratio of Li, Ni, Co, and Al was 1:0.8:0.15:0.05.” (0042).
Regarding claim 17, Okuda et al., teaches temperature range from 25 to 350°C (60 deg C) (0052) at a heating rate of 10°C/min (0029; 0032), is higher than 232°C (600 to 1200 deg C) (0029; 0032).
Regarding claim 18, Okuda et al., teaches a temperature range from 25 to 350°C (60 deg C) (0052) at a heating rate of 10°C/min (0029; 0032), is higher than 232°C (600 to 1200 deg C) (0029; 0032).
Regarding claim 19, Okuda et al., teaches a positive electrode comprising the positive electrode active material according to claim 1 (abstract; 0001; 0017-0018).
Regarding claim 20, Okuda et al., teaches a lithium secondary battery (abstract; 0001) comprising the positive electrode according to claim 19 (abstract; 0001).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that “Okuda and Choi fail to disclose nor suggest the claimed combination of features presently set forth in amended independent claim 1.”
However, a new secondary reference, Ryu et al., US 20120107686, has been presented in the 35 USC 103 Rejection.
Additionally, the Applicant argues that “Choi is not applicable prior art under 35 USC 103, because Choi is neither 35 USC 102(a)(2) prior art nor 35 USC 102(a)(1) prior art…” (pgs. 9-10 of Remarks-11/28/2025). Choi et al., has been removed and is no longer listed as prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA J MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1288. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-4pm.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 571-272-1330. 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.
ANGELA J. MARTIN
Examiner
Art Unit 1727
/ANGELA J MARTIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1727