DETAILED ACTION
Application 18/553301, “POSITIVE ELECTRODE ACTIVE MATERIAL FOR LITHIUM SECONDARY BATTERY AND LITHIUM SECONDARY BATTERY COMPRISING SAME”, is the national stage entry of a PCT application filed on 3/30/22 and claims priority from a foreign application filed on 3/30/21.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action on the merits is in response to communication filed on 7/2/26.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 7/2/26 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. Applicant presents the following arguments.
Nam and Chang only mention fine and coarse particles in general terms, but fail to provide any specific disclosure or suggestion regarding the precise ratios of such fine and coarse particles. In response, as described in the rejections, Nam teaches the positive electrode active material comprising a mixture of large particles (D50 of 10 to 30 µm) and small particles (D50 of 1 to 6 µm) in a weight ratio of 50:50 to 90:10 (paragraphs [0047-0048]). Thus, an embodiment comprising a mixture of large particles having a D50 of 10 µm and small particles having a D50 of 6 µm at a 50:50 to 90:10 ratio is within the scope of the Nam disclosure. Such a mixture must have a D50 value of greater than 6 µm and less than 10 µm (the overall average of the mixture, considering both the large and small particles, must be a value smaller than the large particles and bigger than the small particles), thereby lying within the size range required by the “the ratio of particles with an average size of 2 µm or less is 2.5% or less, and the ratio of particles with an average particle size of 10 µm or more is 3% or less” limitation of claim 1. It is noted that the word “average” included in the claimed recitation indicates that the D50 disclosure of Nam is relevant to the claimed limitation.
Nam teaches a mixture of large particles (10 to 30 µm) and small particles (1 to 6 µm) in a weight ratio of 50:50 to 90:10, a teaching which is fundamentally different from the particle ratios defined in the present invention. Moreover, Nam teaches a bimodal mixture of large and small particles, which is entirely distinct from the technical concept of the present invention which seeks to improve uniformity of a positive electrode active material. In response, as described in MPEP 2141 III, “In determining obviousness, neither the particular motivation to make the claimed invention nor the problem the inventor is solving controls. The proper analysis is whether the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art after consideration of all the facts”. Additionally, as stated in MPEP 2144 IV, “The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant.” Here, applicant argues that the rejection is deficient simply because it is not crafted with art recognizing and addressing the technical problem applicant intends to solve. However, as shown, this is not the standard under US patent obviousness analysis. The rejection explains why the limitations, as worded, are obvious over the cited art and is not required to match the rationale applicant used to arrive at the claimed invention.
Chang teaches the desirability of improving particle uniformity, but fails to provide any disclosure of improving uniformity through the addition of boron. Instead, Change solely discloses the technical approach of controlling particle uniformity through a post-treatment process involving pressure application. In response, claim 1 as worded does not require a particular level of uniformity beyond that implied by the positively claimed range limitations, and does not require that uniformity is increased via the addition of boron. Thus, the argument is not persuasive at least because it is not commensurate in scope the claimed invention as presently worded.
Applicant points to Tables 2 and 4 of the instant application as evidence that the addition of boron in the present invention enables the improvement of particle uniformity in the positive electrode active material. In response, the evidence is not found to be sufficient to demonstrate the nonobviousness of the claimed invention at least because: i), the claimed invention is not tied to the inclusion of boron or the uniformity of the positive electrode active material in a manner beyond the actually claimed language. The actually claimed language is found to be suggested by the cited art for reasons set forth in the body of the claims. And ii), to be of probative value, the evidence of criticality should compare the claimed invention to the closest prior art (MPEP 716.02(e)). Here, the evidence does not compare the claimed invention to the disclosures of Nam and/or Chang. For example, Nam teaches a positive electrode active material comprising large particles of 10 μm (as a lower limit of the large particle disclosed range) and smaller particles. The evidence does not appear to acknowledge such embodiments so that they could be compared to inventive embodiments. Thus, the evidence is insufficient to overcome the prima facie case of obviousness by secondary considerations.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 10 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Nam (US 2019/0341598) and Chang (US 2022/0344653).
Regarding claim 1, Nam teaches a positive electrode active material (abstract), comprising: a metal oxide particle containing a center portion and a surface portion positioned on the surface of the center portion (paragraph [0011 describes core-shell particles), wherein, the metal oxide particle includes nickel, cobalt, manganese and Zr and Al as doping elements (paragraphs [0010, 0223]), and is composed of a single particle (“the nickel-based lithium metal oxide particle includes a core portion in which a molar amount of nickel is constant; and a shell portion surrounding the outer surface of the core portion”, paragraph [0011]).
Regarding the 7/2/26 amendment to claim 1, Nam does not appear to teach wherein: based on the entire positive electrode active material, the ratio of particles with an average particle size of 2 μm or less is less than 2.5%, and based on the entire positive electrode active material, the ratio of particles with an average particle size of 10 μm or more is less than 3%.
However, Nam does teach that the positive electrode active material may be formed from a composition comprising 10 to 30 μm large particles and 1-6 μm small particles, at a 50:50 to 90:10 ratio (paragraph [0106-0107]). Thus, an embodiment comprising a mixture of large particles having a D50 of 10 µm and small particles having a D50 of 6 µm at a 50:50 to 90:10 ratio is within the scope of the Nam disclosure.
Such a mixture must have a D50 value of greater than 6 µm and less than 10 µm (the overall average of the mixture, considering both the large and small particles, must be a value smaller than the large particles and bigger than the small particles), thereby lying within the size range required by the “the ratio of particles with an average size of 2 µm or less is 2.5% or less, and the ratio of particles with an average particle size of 10 µm or more is 3% or less” limitation of claim 1. It is noted that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when the claimed range overlaps the range suggested by the prior art (MPEP 2144.05).
It is noted that Nam’s disclosure of particle size in in terms of D50 values, where a broader distribution could cause more of the particles to have a size further from the d50 value, e.g. higher than a suggested D50 value of 10 µm.
However, in the battery art, Chang teaches that it is desirable to configure a positive electrode active material to have a narrow particle size distribution for the benefit of improving the performance of a secondary battery assembled using the positive electrode active material (paragraph [0030]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to configure the positive electrode active material of Nam to have a particle size narrowly distributed around the intended average particle size value, such as around 10 µm for the large particle and 6 µm for the small particles, as a narrow particle size distribution for the benefit of improving the performance of a secondary battery as taught by Chang.
Finally, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when the prior art range does not overlap, but is close enough to a claimed range that substantially the same function would be provided, absent a showing of unexpected results (MPEP 2144.05). Additionally, it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” (MPEP 2144.04 IVA).
Here, any difference between the disclosure of the cited art and the claimed invention with respect to particle size is merely a difference in terms of relative dimensions and no evidence of record establishes a critical difference in performance between the embodiments suggested by the prior art from applicant’s invention, as claimed. Accordingly, the invention of claim 1 is found to be obvious over the cited art.
Regarding claim 2, the cited art remains as applied to claim 1. Nam further teaches wherein: a content of the doping element ranges from 0.0005 mole to 0.04 mole, based on 1 mole of the total of the nickel, cobalt, manganese and doping elements (paragraph [0223]; more broadly see paragraph [0012]).
Regarding claim 3, the cited art remains as applied to claim 1. Nam further teaches wherein: a content of the Zr ranges from 0.001 mole to 0.01 mole, based on 1 mole of the total of the nickel, cobalt, manganese and doping elements (paragraph [0223]; more broadly see paragraph [0012]).
Regarding claim 4, the cited art remains as applied to claim 1. Nam does not expressly teach wherein: a content of the Al ranges from 0.001 mole to 0.04 mole, based on 1 mole of the total of the nickel, cobalt, manganese and doping elements. However, this range is found to be obvious for overlapping the range suggested by Nam at paragraph [0012].
Regarding claim 5, the cited art remains as applied to claim 1. Nam further teaches wherein: a content of nickel in the metal oxide particle is 0.8 mol or more, based on 1 mole of the total of the nickel, cobalt, and manganese (paragraph [0223]).
Regarding claim 7, the cited art remains as applied to claim 1. Nam further teaches wherein: the surface portion contains a film, containing a compound with an amorphous structure (paragraph [0126] describes the shell as comprised of an amorphous compound).
Regarding claim 10, the cited art remains as applied to claim 1. Nam is silent as to wherein: the center portion contains a layered structure.
However, the chemical formula of the Nam center portion described at paragraph [0016, e.g. 0223] is consistent with a layered structure. As supporting evidence only, consider Nam2 (WO 2019/132332 A1; citations taken from US 2023/0140577) at paragraph [0009].
Therefore, the center portion of the Nam particle is found to contain a layered structure.
Regarding claim 16, the cited art remains as applied to claim 1. Nam does not expressly teach wherein: D50 particle size of the metal oxide particle is less than 5.5 μm. However, this range is found to be obvious for overlapping the range suggested by Nam at paragraph [0047-0048], considering that a 50:50 mix of 1 μm particles and 10 μm particles
Claims 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Nam (US 2019/0341598), Chang (US 2022/0344653) and Sawai (US 2016/0204424).
Regarding claim 8, the cited art remains as applied to claim 7. Nam does not appear to teach wherein: the amorphous structure of the compound contains carbon and lithium.
In the battery art, Sawai teaches that a lithium compound may be provided with a surface layer comprising amorphous carbon and lithium for the benefit of improving high output, voltage and energy density characteristics (paragraphs [0021, 0054]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to configure the positive electrode active material of Nam to include a surface portion including an amorphous structure comprising carbon and lithium for the benefit of improving high output, voltage and energy density characteristics as taught by Sawai.
Claims 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Nam (US 2019/0341598), Chang (US 2022/0344653) and Kuriki (US 2022/0416239).
Regarding claim 9, the cited art remains as applied to claim 1. Nam does not expressly teach wherein: The surface portion contains an amorphous structure and a rock salt structure.
However, Nam does teach the particle comprising a crystalline core and an amorphous shell (paragraphs [0005, 0045]). Claim 9 requires that the surface portion contains and amorphous structure and a rock salt structure, but does not limit the arrangement of these portions of the surface layer. Therefore, an outer region of the crystalline core is readable on the claimed rock salt structure, and the amorphous region is readable on the claimed amorphous structure.
It is noted that rock salt is an obvious to utilize form of the crystalline structure of the Nam core, since rock salt is a preferred if not inherent structure formed of lithium transition metal compounds (see Kuriki at paragraph [0024]) compounds.
Claims 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Nam (US 2019/0341598), Chang (US 2022/0344653) and Nam2 (WO 2019/132332 A1; citations taken from US 2023/0140577).
Regarding claim 10, the cited art remains as applied to claim 1. Nam is silent as to teach wherein: the center portion contains a layered structure (paragraph [0009]).
In the battery art, Nam2 further teaches that lithium nickel transition metal oxides formed having a layered structure (paragraph [0009, 0022]) may provide improved performance (paragraph [0008]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to configure the positive electrode active material of Nam to configured the lithium nickel transition metal oxide to have a layered structure for the benefit of facilitating desirable performance as taught by Nam2.
Claims 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Nam (US 2019/0341598), Chang (US 2022/0344653) and Kim (US 2022/0109153).
Regarding claim 11, the cited art remains as applied to claim 1. Nam is silent as to wherein: a particle strength of the metal oxide particle is more than 291 MPa.
In the battery art, Kim teaches that it is desirable to configure a lithium composite oxide particle to have a strength of 500 MPa or more for the benefit of preventing damage thereof during high pressure rolling (paragraph [0069]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the particle of Nam such that it possesses a particle strength of more than 291 MPa, since particles having particle strength of lower than 291 MPa would be expected to be susceptible to damage during high pressure rolling as taught by Kim.
It is noted that claim 11 as worded includes the requirement that the strength is greater than 291 MPa, but does not include any specific structure which enables achievement of this property. Moreover, the cited art clarifies that such strength values represent the aspirational range known in the art at the time of invention. Thus, the claimed limitation is found to be obvious as being drawn to an aspirational range, without including any specific structure beyond that disclosed in the cited art which allows attainment of the high strength value.
Claims 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Nam (US 2019/0341598), Chang (US 2022/0344653) and Park (US 2022/0037658) or Kashiwagi (US 2020/0411861).
Regarding claim 12, the cited art remains as applied to claim 1. Nam does not appear to teach wherein: a grain size of the metal oxide particle ranges from 2,500 Å to 5,000 Å.
In the battery art, Park teaches that a positive electrode active material having crystallite size of 170 to 300 nm is desirable in terms of suppressing breaking during roll pressing, thereby improving lifespan and stability (paragraph [0028]).
In the battery art, Kashiwagi teaches that it is desirable to configure a positive electrode active material to have a crystallite size of 50 to 400 nm for the benefit of providing particles which are not unstable and are resistant to deterioration (paragraph [0092]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to configure the positive electrode active material to have a grain size in compliance with the range suggested by Park or Kashiwagi for the benefit of achieving the benefits disclosed by the references, respectively. The claimed range is found to be obvious for overlapping the range(s) disclosed by the prior art.
Claims 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Nam (US 2019/0341598), Chang (US 2022/0344653) and Kaneda (US 2022/0238874).
Regarding claim 13, the cited art remains as applied to claim 1. Nam is silent as to the specific surface are of the positive electrode material.
In the battery art, Kaneda teaches that it is desirable for a positive electrode active material to have a specific surface area in the arrange of 0.1 to 0.5 m2/g for the benefit of providing desirable output characteristics, stability, and other properties (paragraphs [0104-0107]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to configure the positive electrode material of Nam to have a specific surface area of less than 0.70 m2/g for the benefit of providing desirable output characteristics, stability, and other properties as taught by Kaneda.
Relevant or Related Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, though not necessarily pertinent to applicant’s invention as claimed.
EP 3734720: coated positive electrode active material of single particle type;
JP 2021-514524: coated positive electrode active material of single particle type;
KR 2019-139033: coated positive electrode active material of single particle type.
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 JEREMIAH R SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7005. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9 AM-5 PM (EST).
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, Tiffany Legette-Thompson can be reached on (571)270-7078. 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.
/JEREMIAH R SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights