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 claims 17 and 31; and added new claims 32-33. The pending claims are claims 17, 21-33.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/9/2026 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) 17, 21-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al., US 20200343553.
Regarding claim 17, Kim et al., teaches a secondary battery (abstract; 0009-0012), comprising: a modified high-nickel ternary positive electrode material (0006) comprising :an inner core and an inner coating layer (0010-0011) and the inner coating layer is a Co-containing compound (abstract; 0010-0011), and the outer coating layer comprises an Al-containing compound (abstract; 0010-0011) and a B-containing compound (0010-0011); and an outer coating layer (0009-0011); comprises a high-nickel ternary positive electrode material matrix (0006), the matrix being doped (0007) with M1, M2, and W (0027-0028; 0065), wherein M1 is one of Mo (0021-0022), Zr (0021-0022), Ti (abstract; 0010-0011), Nb (0021-0022), M2 is one of Mg (0021-0022; 0065), Al (abstract; 0010-0011), Zn (0065), and a chemical formula of the high-nickel ternary positive electrode material matrix doped with M1, M2, and W is Lii+a[NixCoyMnzM1bM2cWd]O2, wherein 0.65
PNG
media_image1.png
9
7
media_image1.png
Greyscale
x < 1, 0
PNG
media_image1.png
9
7
media_image1.png
Greyscale
y <0.3,0
PNG
media_image1.png
9
7
media_image1.png
Greyscale
z<O.3, 0 <a<0.2, 0 <b<0.1, 0 <c<0.1, 0 <d<0.1, x+y+z+b+c+d= 1 (0021-0028); a surface layer of the inner core (0010-0011) is further doped with Co (abstract; 0010-0011; 0019; 0029-0032).
Although Kim et al., does not recite: “wherein 0.65
PNG
media_image1.png
9
7
media_image1.png
Greyscale
x < 1, 0
PNG
media_image1.png
9
7
media_image1.png
Greyscale
y <0.3,0
PNG
media_image1.png
9
7
media_image1.png
Greyscale
z<O.3, 0 <a<0.2, 0 <b<0.1, 0 <c<0.1, 0 <d<0.1, x+y+z+b+c+d= 1,” 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). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963).
Regarding claim 21, Kim et al., teaches wherein a doping amount of M1 is larger than or equal to a doping amount of M2 or W (0007; 0027-0028; 0065).
Regarding claim 22, Kim et al., does not teach wherein a ratio of a doping amount of M1 to a sum of doping amounts of M2 and W is 1:(0.1-2).
However, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 23, Kim et al., teaches wherein a thickness d of the surface layer satisfies 0 < d < 3 um (0037; 0053; 0063).
Regarding claim 24, Kim et al., teaches wherein a coating amount of the Al-containing compound is 100-3000 ppm (1000-8000 ppm) (0032-0034); a coating amount of the B-containing compound is 100-2000 ppm (50-700 ppm); coating amount of Co is 100-20000 ppm (1000-8000 ppm) (0032).
Regarding claim 25, Kim et al., teaches, wherein a total thickness of the inner coating layer and the outer coating layer is 100-300 nm (0037).
Regarding claim 26, Kim et al., does not teach wherein a coating amount of the Al-containing compound and a coating amount of the B-containing compound satisfy that a weight ratio of Al to B is (0.5-2):1.
Kim et al., does not teach wherein each of the coating amounts is calculated based on a corresponding element in a compound with respect to the modified high-nickel ternary positive electrode material.
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). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963).
Regarding claim 27, Kim et al., does not teach wherein: a doping amount of W is 100-2000 ppm; a doping amount of M1 is 2000-4000 ppm; a doping amount of M2 is 500-2000 ppm; each of the doping amounts is calculated based on a corresponding element with respect to the modified high-nickel ternary positive electrode material.
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). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963).
Regarding claim 28, Kim et al., does not teach wherein a sum of a doping amount of Co, in the surface layer and coating amounts of the Co-containing compound, the Al- containing compound, and the B-containing compound is 1000-22000 ppm, wherein each of the doping amount in the surface layer and the coating amounts is calculated based on a corresponding element in a compound with respect to the modified high-nickel ternary positive electrode material.
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). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963).
Regarding claim 29, Kim et al., does not teach wherein a volume particle size distribution span of the modified high-nickel ternary positive electrode material
satisfies (Dv90 - D 10)/Dv50 > 1.1.
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). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963).
Regarding claim 30, Kim et al., does not teach wherein a powder compacted density of the modified high-nickel ternary positive electrode material and does not teach “under a pressure of 5 tons is larger than or equal to 3.4 g/cc.”
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). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963).
Regarding claim 31, Kim et al., teaches a secondary battery (abstract; 0009-0012), comprising: a modified high-nickel ternary positive electrode material (0006) comprising and an inner core an inner coating layer (0010-0011) and the inner coating layer is a Co-containing compound (abstract; 0010-0011), and the outer coating layer comprises an Al-containing compound (abstract; 0010-0011) and a B-containing compound (0010-0011); and an outer coating layer (0009-0011); comprising a high-nickel ternary positive electrode material matrix (0006), the matrix being doped (0007) with M1, M2, and W (0027-0028; 0065), wherein M1 is one of Mo (0021-0022), Zr (0021-0022), Ti (abstract; 0010-0011), Nb (0021-0022), M2 is one of Mg (0021-0022; 0065), Al (abstract; 0010-0011), Zn (0065), and a chemical formula of the high-nickel ternary positive electrode material matrix doped with M1, M2, and W is Lii+a[NixCoyMnzM1bM2cWd]O2, wherein 0.65
PNG
media_image1.png
9
7
media_image1.png
Greyscale
x < 1, 0
PNG
media_image1.png
9
7
media_image1.png
Greyscale
y <0.3,0
PNG
media_image1.png
9
7
media_image1.png
Greyscale
z<O.3, 0 <a<0.2, 0 <b<0.1, 0 <c<0.1, 0 <d<0.1, x+y+z+b+c+d= 1 (0021-0028); a surface layer of the inner core (0010-0011) is further doped with Co (abstract; 0010-0011; 0019; 0029-0032).
Although Kim et al., does not recite: “wherein 0.65
PNG
media_image1.png
9
7
media_image1.png
Greyscale
x < 1, 0
PNG
media_image1.png
9
7
media_image1.png
Greyscale
y <0.3,0
PNG
media_image1.png
9
7
media_image1.png
Greyscale
z<O.3, 0 <a<0.2, 0 <b<0.1, 0 <c<0.1, 0 <d<0.1, x+y+z+b+c+d= 1,” 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). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963).
Regarding claim 32, Kim et al., teaches wherein the Co-containing compound comprising one or more of Co₃O₄, Co(OH)₂, CoO, CoOOH, and CoCO₃ (0041).
Regarding claim 33, Kim et al., teaches a secondary battery (abstract; 0009-0012), comprising: a modified high-nickel ternary positive electrode material (0006) comprising:
an inner core and an inner coating layer (0010-0011) disposed on a surface layer of the inner core, the inner coating layer being a Co-containing compound (abstract; 0010-0011), the Co-containing compound comprising one or more of Co₃O₄, Co(OH)₂, CoO, CoOOH, and CoCO₃ (0041); and an outer coating layer disposed on a surface of the inner coating layer (0010-0011; 0029-0034); and comprising an Al-containing compound (0010-0011; 0019; 0031) and a B-containing compound (0010-0011; 0029; 0031); wherein: the inner core comprises a high-nickel ternary positive electrode material matrix (0006), the matrix being doped with M1, M2, and W (0027-0028), wherein M1 is one of Zr (0022), Ti (0010-0011), Nb (0022), M2 is one of Mg (0022), Al (0010-0011), Zn (0065), and Sr (0022), and a chemical formula of the high-nickel ternary positive electrode material matrix (0066) doped with M1, M2, and W is Li₁ (0019-0023) wherein 0.65 < x < 1, 0 ≤ y < 0.3, 0 ≤ Z < 0.3, 0 < a < 0.2, < 0 < b < 0.1, 0 < c < 0.1, 1 (0021-0029); the surface layer of the inner core is further doped with Co (0010-0011).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to above claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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
Prosecution Insights