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
This is a final office action in response to Applicant's remarks and amendments filed on 7/28/2026. Claim1, 6, 12-13 and 16 are currently amended. Claim 10 is cancelled. Claim 21 is newly added. Claims 1-9 and 11-21 are pending review in this action.
The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 1-9 and 11-21 are partly withdrawn and partly maintained. The 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections of claims 6-7 and 12-19 are being maintained. The 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections in the previous Office Action are withdrawn.
New grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant's amendments are presented below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art fails to disclose the specific "aggregated single crystal morphology" having a fused, nested surrounding structure as well as the specific ternary formula limits now amended into independent Claim 1. However, Zhang explicitly discloses a positive electrode material having a morphology formed by aggregating primary single-crystal particles into a secondary fusion-type single crystal agglomerate where primary single crystals are fused together (Zhang [pars. n0023,n0032-0038; Figs. 1A-1B]). This structure maps directly to Applicant's "aggregated single crystal" morphology.
Furthermore, while Zhang may not explicitly detail the exact trace dopant proportions (M2p), Lee explicitly teaches doping ternary lithium nickel composite oxides with the exact claimed trace metals (Mg, W, Mo, Nb) in the identical ranges (0 < p ≤ 0.005) to enhance stability.
Finally, regarding the electrochemical impedance parameters (Rct and slope k) and the newly added testing parameters in Claim 21: when prior art materials possess identical structural and compositional properties, a prima facie case of obviousness exists that the material will exhibit the claimed physical properties under testing. Adding specific non-limiting test conditions (Claim 21) to define a previously structurally-defined battery does not impart patentability to the apparatus itself [MPEP 2114].
Accordingly, the rejections are maintained and updated to reflect the claim amendments. This action is made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6-7 and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 6 recites a functional relationship governing particle size expressed in Formula 1 as: D503 = K × n × d503, where K is a coefficient having a range of 0.2 to 2. The specification is silent as to the physical significance, calculation, or determination of the coefficient K. Because K is not defined, one skilled in the art would not know how to select a value for K to achieve the claimed median secondary particle size D50 from primary particles d50 and their number n. Further, the range of 0.2 to 2 is broad, and it is unclear how material properties (e.g., shape factor, packing efficiency) affect the selection of K within this range. Therefore, a PHOSITA would be required to engage in undue experimentation to determine which K value works for a given set of particles, rendering the scope of the claim, as defined by this parameter, not enabled.
Claims 7-9 and 12-19 are similarly rejected for including the subject matter of base claim 6.
Claim 1-9 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Absolute Value of Impedance: Claim 1 recites a charge transfer impedance Rct in terms of m
Ω
. However,
R
c
t
as an absolute value is dependent on the specific cell mass/size of the electrode material tested (e.g., 100 g vs 1 g). Providing a raw resistance value without tying it to the specific structural dimensions or mass of the active material being tested renders the structural scope of the battery claim indefinite. While claim 21 recites testing procedures, it fails to normalize the cell mass for the absolute resistance value.
Claims 2-9 and 12-21 are similarly rejected for including the subject matter of base claim 6.
Formula 1 Coefficient: Claim 6 recites, “D503 = K × n × d503, wherein K is a coefficient having a range of 0.2<K<2.” The coefficient K is a crucial value in the claimed equation, holding a significant range (0.2 to 2), and the specification does not provide a definition, formula, or example for how to calculate or select this value (e.g., is it based on particle shape, porosity, or stacking density?), and a person having ordinary skill in the art cannot determine if their specific secondary particle falls within the claim scope.
Claims 7-9 and 12-19 are similarly rejected for including the subject matter of base claim 6.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9, 11-12 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN112687871A) in view of Lee (US20200144618A).
Regarding Claims 1 and 11, Zhang discloses a lithium battery, comprising a positive electrode plate, wherein the positive electrode plate comprises a positive electrode material, the positive electrode material comprises several particles having an aggregated single crystal morphology, and the particles having an aggregated single crystal morphology is formed by nesting several primary particles, and has a surrounding structure formed by one primary particle and a plurality of primary particles that are fused and connected with each other [pars. n0023,n0032-39; Figs. 1A-1B]; and the primary particle is a ternary material, and a chemical formula of the ternary material is LiNixCoyMzO2, wherein x is from 0.3 to 1, y is from 0 to 0.5, and z from 0 to 0.3, and x+y+z=1; wherein M is preferably Mn or Al [pars. n0005,n0033-0035,n0052].
Zhang fails to explicitly disclose wherein the ternary material includes trace dopants M of Mg, Sr, Ba, Y, W, Nb, or Mo in the range of 0 < p < 0.005 and explicitly detailing that in an electrochemical impedance spectroscopy test, a charge transfer impedance Rct < 15 mΩ, and a slope k meets 1.03 < k < 57.29.
Lee discloses a positive electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery comprising a ternary lithium composite transition metal oxide containing at least trace dopants including Mg, W, Mo, and Nb to enhance structural stability, increase capacity retention, and improve rate capability of the positive electrode material [pars. 0023-0024,0028]. Further, the instant specification does not attribute any significance to the additional metal dopants in terms of unexpected advantage or benefit. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled artisan to have modified the ternary material of Zhang to have further included at least one of Mg, W, Mo, or Nb as dopants in order to enhance structural stability, increase capacity retention, and/or improve rate capability of the ternary Li-nickel based mixed metal oxide as a positive electrode material within the claimed range as in claim 1, or specifically that of claim 11, without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success [MPEP 2144.05(II)]. Furthermore, because the modified battery of Zhang and Lee possesses the identical structural morphology and compositional ranges, it would inherently exhibit the claimed charge transfer impedance Rct and slope k values when subjected to EIS testing.
Regarding Claims 2-5 and 21, these claims recite specific frequencies and resulting Rct and k ranges. Since modified Zhang disclose identical physical structures, it is a prima facie case of inherency/obviousness that the identically structured battery will inherently possess these property values under test conditions.
Regarding Claims 6-9 and 12, modified Zhang discloses the positive electrode material meets a relational expression shown in Formula 1 as follows: D503 = K × n × d503, wherein n is a quantity of the primary particles having a range of 2 < n < 500, D50 ranges from 0.5 to 15 µm, and d50 ranges from 0.2 to 3 µm [par. n0039; Figs 1A-1B]. By falling within the exact particle sizing and quantity variables, the material inherently meets the broad relational expression for any coefficient K.
Regarding Claim 20, Zhang fails to disclose comprising a non-aqueous electrolyte solution, wherein the non-aqueous electrolyte solution comprises an additive; and the additive is selected from at least one of fluoroethylene carbonate, vinylene carbonate, vinyl ethylene carbonate, ethylene sulfate, 1,3-propane sultone or 1,4-butane sultone. However, Lee, from the same field of endeavor, teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte solution for a lithium battery comprising an additive, wherein the additive is fluoroethylene carbonate, in order to improve lifetime characteristics of the battery, suppress the reduction in battery capacity, and improve discharge capacity of the battery [Lee – pars. 0060]. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled artisan to have employed the teachings of Lee to have modified battery of Lee to have comprised a non-aqueous electrolyte solution comprising fluoroethylene carbonate as an additive in order to improve lifetime characteristics of the battery, suppress the reduction in battery capacity, and improve discharge capacity of the battery.
Claim(s) 13-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang and Lee, as applied to claims 1 and 6, respectively, and further in view of Du (CN110165205A).
Regarding Claims 13 and 16-17, Zhang fails to disclose wherein the positive electrode material further comprises a coating layer, and the coating layer covers a surface of the particles having a polymeric single crystal morphology; and a material forming the coating layer is a metal compound and/or a non-metal compound. However, Du, from the same field of endeavor, teaches a positive electrode material including a ternary material represented by LiNiCoMMeO, where M may be one or both Mn and Al, and Me may be one or more of Zr, Zn Cu, Cr, Mg, Fe, V, Ti, Y and Nb, wherein the positive electrode material further comprises a first coating layer and a second coating layer, the first coating layer covers a surface primary particles having a single crystal morphology, and the second coating layer covers an outer surface of the first coating layer, the first coating layer is a metal compound being an oxide of one or more of Al, Zr, and Ti, and the second coating is a metal compound or a non-metal compound being an oxide of one or more of B, Sn, S, and P [Du – pars. 0004,0014,0029-30]. Du further teaches wherein a mass of the first coating layer accounts for 0.05 wt%-1 wt%, and wherein the mass of the second coating layer accounts for 0.05 wt%- 0.8 wt% of a total mass of the positive electrode material [Du – pars. 0035-36]. Due teaches that such a positive electrode material having a first and second coating has the characteristics of low residual lithium content on the surface, small specific surface area and high surface structure stability, and can effectively improve the problem of cathode material being easily broken under pressure, and can also effectively reduce the side reaction between cathode material and electrolyte, reduce the gas production of battery and improve battery storage performance [Du – pars. 00118]. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled artisan to have employed the teachings of Du to have modified the positive electrode material of Zhang, wherein the positive electrode material further comprises a coating layer, and the coating layer covers a surface of the particles having a polymeric single crystal morphology; and a material forming the coating layer is a metal compound and/or a non-metal compound, wherein a mass of the coating layer accounts for 0.05 wt %-1 wt % of a total mass of the positive electrode material, wherein the coating layer comprises a first coating layer and a second coating layer, the first coating layer covers a surface of the particles having a polymeric single crystal morphology, the second coating layer covers an outer surface of the first coating layer, the first coating layer is a metal compound, and the second coating layer is a metal compound and/or a non-metal compound, wherein the metal compound is selected from at least one of aluminum oxide, tungsten oxide, molybdenum oxide, zirconium oxide, or titanium oxide; and/or the non-metal compound is selected from boron oxide, in order to obtain a positive electrode material having characteristics of low residual lithium content on the surface, small specific surface area and high surface structure stability, can effectively improve the problem of cathode material being easily broken under pressure and effectively reduce the side reaction between cathode material and electrolyte, and thus, reduce the gas production of battery, and improve battery storage performance.
Regarding Claims 14-15 and 18-19, modified Zhang discloses wherein the mass of the first coating layer accounts for 0.05 wt%-1 wt%, and wherein the mass of the second coating layer accounts for 0.05 wt%- 0.8 wt% of a total mass of the positive electrode material [Du – pars. 0035-36], which overlap the claimed ranges, respectively, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness [MPEP 2144.05(I)].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 HAROON S SHEIKH whose telephone number is (571)270-0302. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6.
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.
HAROON S. SHEIKH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1751
/Haroon S. Sheikh/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
Prosecution Insights