DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2021-0084280, filed on June 28th, 2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) submitted on December 27th, 2023; October 16th, 2024; and December 4th, 2025 have been received and considered by the Examiner.
Claim Interpretation
All “wherein” clauses are given patentable weight unless otherwise noted. Please see MPEP 2111.04 regarding optional claim language.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 15 recites the limitation “including positive electrode active material secondary microparticle.” This appears to be a typographical error and should most likely read (with emphasis): “including positive electrode active material secondary microparticles.”
Claim 1, lines 25-26 recite the limitation “secondary microparticles, wherein the positive electrode.” This appears to be a typographical error and should most likely read (with emphasis) “secondary microparticles, and wherein the positive electrode.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-13 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1, line 9 recites the limitation “the group.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this claim limitation and should, instead, most likely read “a group.”
Claim 5, lines 2-3 recite the limitation “the primary macroparticles included in each of the first and second positive electrode active material layers.” It is wholly unclear whether the primary macroparticles are included in both the first and second positive electrode active material layers. For example, if the positive electrode active material secondary microparticles comprise the primary microparticles (which would read on the instant claim limitation), would there be any inclusion of the primary macroparticles in the second positive electrode active material layer.
Claim 8, lines 2-3 recite the limitation “wherein the secondary microparticles are present in an amount of 10 to 100 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the secondary macroparticles.” However, the secondary microparticles are not included in the secondary macroparticles. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as “based on 100 parts by weight of the secondary microparticles and the secondary macroparticles combined.”
Further clarification is required.
Prior Art
Guo CN110429252A (“Guo) (as cited in the December 4th, 2025 IDS)
Cho US PG Publication 2020/0343550 (“Cho”)
Mitsumoto US PG Publication 2020/0194788 (“Mitsumoto”)
Zaghib US PG Publication 2009/0301866
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo CN110429252A (machine translation provided, for purposes of examination US PG Publication 2021/0313563 is cited throughout) in view of Cho US PG Publication 2020/0343550.
Regarding Claim 1, Guo discloses a cathode (which reads on the instantly claimed positive electrode) for a lithium-ion battery (lithium secondary battery) ([0006]-[0007], entire disclosure dependent upon) comprising:
a current collector ([0007]);
a first [positive electrode active material] layer on at least one surface of the current collector ([0074]), and
a second [positive electrode active material] layer on the first positive electrode active material layer ([0074]),
wherein the first positive electrode active material layer comprises first secondary particles having an average particle size (D50) of 5 µm to 20 µm (which overlaps the claimed range of 3 to 7 µm)1 formed by agglomeration of third particles (primary macroparticles) having an average size (D50) of 200 nm to 700 nm (which overlaps the claimed range of 0.5 to 3 µm)1 ([0007]),
the second positive electrode active material layer comprises a positive electrode active material secondary microparticle ([0038]),
wherein the positive electrode active material secondary microparticles have an average particle size (D50) of 3 to 5 µm (which falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of 1 to 7 µm) formed by agglomeration of primary particles ([0030]), and
wherein the positive electrode active material particles are a nickel-based lithium transition metal oxide positive electrode active material ([0016]-[0017]).
Guo fails to disclose wherein the second positive electrode active material layer comprises bimodal positive electrode active materials.
However, Cho discloses a positive active material for a rechargeable lithium battery comprising a nickel-based lithium material (Abstract, entire disclosure dependent upon).
Cho teaches wherein the positive active material comprises primary particles having a particle diameter between 100 nm and 5 µm ([0023]), small secondary particles having a particle diameter between 5 and 6 µm ([0023]-[0025]), and large secondary particles having a particle diameter between 10 and 20 µm ([0023]-[0025]), wherein the small and large secondary particles are formed of an agglomeration of the primary particles ([0051]) and have a mixing weight ratio between 10:90 and 30:70 ([0082]) such that a high-capacity cell may be obtained and excellent active mass density of the positive electrode layer may be maintained ([0083]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the positive electrode of Guo such that the second positive electrode active material layer comprises bimodal positive electrode active materials including positive electrode active material secondary microparticles having an average particle size of 5 to 6 µm formed by an agglomeration of primary microparticles having an average particle diameter between 100 nm and 5 µm (which overlaps the claimed range of smaller than the primary macroparticles)1 and positive electrode active material secondary macroparticles having an average particle size of 10 to 20 µm (which falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of 7 to 20 µm) formed by agglomeration of the primary microparticles having an average particle diameter between 100 nm and 5 µm (which overlaps the claimed range of smaller than the primary macroparticles)1, wherein the mixing ratio of microparticle to macroparticle is 10:90 to 30:70 by weight - in order to obtain a high-capacity cell and maintain excellent active mass density of the positive electrode layer, as taught by Cho.
The skilled artisan would recognize that Guo in view of Cho discloses wherein the average particle size (D50) of the secondary macroparticles (10 to 20 µm – Cho [0025]) is larger than the average particle size (D50) of the secondary microparticles (5 to 6 µm – Cho [0025]).
1 In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding Claims 2-3, Guo in view of Cho teaches the instantly claimed positive electrode according to Claim 1, and (as described in the rejection of Claim 1) Guo in view of Cho discloses wherein the average particle size (D50) of the primary microparticles is between 100 nm and 5 µm (which encompasses the claimed ranges of 100 to 900 nm and 100 to 400 nm)1 (Cho [0023]).
1 In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding Claim 5, Guo in view of Cho teaches the instantly claimed positive electrode according to Claim 1. While Guo in view of Cho does not explicitly disclose wherein the average particle size (D50) of the primary macroparticles is 1 to 3 µm, Guo does teach that primary particles having a size of less than 5 µm prevent deterioration of the kinetic performance of the cathode material ([0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the positive electrode of Guo in view of Cho such that the primary macroparticles have an average particle size (D50) of less than 5 µm (which encompasses the claimed range of 1 to 3 µm)1 in order to prevent deterioration of the kinetic performance of the positive electrode material, as taught by Guo.
1 In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding Claim 6, Guo in view of Cho teaches the instantly claimed positive electrode according to Claim 1, and (as described in the rejection of Claim 1) Guo in view of Cho discloses wherein the average particle size (D50) of the secondary microparticles is 5 to 6 µm (which overlaps the claimed range of 2 to 5 µm)1 (Cho [0025]) and the average particle size (D50) of the secondary macroparticles is 10 to 20 µm (which overlaps the claimed range of 8 to 16 µm)1 (Cho [0025]).
1 In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding Claim 7, Guo in view of Cho teaches the instantly claimed positive electrode according to Claim 1, and (as described in the rejection of Claim 1) Guo in view of Cho discloses wherein the average particle size (D50) of the secondary microparticles is 5 to 6 µm (Cho [0025]) and the average particle size (D50) of the secondary macroparticles is 10 to 20 µm (Cho [0025]).
The skilled artisan would recognize that Guo in view of Cho discloses wherein a ratio of the average particle size (D50) of the secondary macroparticles : the average particle size (D50) of the secondary microparticles is 4:1 to 1.67:1 (which overlaps the claimed range of 5:1 to 2:1)1.
1 In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding Claim 8, Guo in view of Cho teaches the instantly claimed positive electrode according to Claim 1, and (as described in the rejection of Claim 1) Guo in view of Cho discloses wherein the secondary microparticles are present in an amount of 10 to 30 parts by weight (which falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of 10 to 100 parts by weight) based on 100 parts by weight of the secondary microparticles and the secondary macroparticles (Cho [0082]).
Regarding Claim 10, Guo in view of Cho teaches the instantly claimed positive electrode according to Claim 1, and Guo in view of Cho discloses wherein the secondary microparticles are agglomerates of the primary microparticles alone (Cho [0052]).
Regarding Claims 11-12, Guo in view of Cho teaches the instantly claimed positive electrode according to Claim 1, and Guo discloses wherein the nickel-based lithium transition metal oxide is represented by either LiαNixCoyM1zN1βO2 or LinNiaCobM2cN2dO2 (which meets the claim limitation of LiaNi1-x-yCoxMnyO2 including in the instance of LiNi0.9Co0.05Mn0.05O2) ([0043]).
Regarding Claim 13, Guo in view of Cho teaches the instantly claimed positive electrode according to Claim 1, and Guo discloses a lithium secondary battery comprising the positive electrode according to Claim 1 ([0051]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo CN110429252A in view of Cho US PG Publication 2020/0343550, as applied to Claim 1, further in view of Mitsumoto US PG Publication 2020/0194788.
Regarding Claim 4, Guo in view of Cho teaches the instantly claimed positive electrode according to Claim 1. Guo in view of Cho fails to disclose an average crystallite size of the primary macroparticles.
However, Mitsumoto discloses a positive electrode active substance for a lithium secondary battery (Abstract, entire disclosure dependent upon). Mitsumoto teaches the use of secondary particles formed from aggregates of primary particles ([0073]-[0075]), wherein the primary particle has a crystallite size of less than 490 nm in order to enhance the ionic conductivity and reduce the resistance of the material ([0114]-[0121]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the positive electrode of Guo in view of Cho such that the average crystallite size of the primary macroparticles included in the first positive electrode active material layer is less than 490 nm (which overlaps the claimed range of equal to or larger than 200 nm)1, in order to enhance the ionic conductivity and reduce the resistance of the active material, as taught by Mitsumoto.
1 In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo CN110429252A in view of Cho US PG Publication 2020/0343550, as applied to Claim 1, further in view of Zaghib US PG Publication 2009/0301866.
Regarding Claim 9, Guo in view of Cho teaches the instantly claimed positive electrode according to Claim 1. Guo in view of Cho fails to disclose the thickness of the first and second positive electrode active material layers.
However, Zaghib discloses a multilayer material for a positive electrode ([0024]). Zaghib teaches that it is preferable in multilayer active material cathodes that the thickness of the first layer be between 10 and 120 µm and the second layer also be between 10 and 120 µm ([0049]-[0051]), including the instance where the second layer (further from the current collector) is thicker than the first layer ([0245], [0261]) such that appropriate coating of the corresponding active materials is achieved ([0210]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the positive electrode of Guo in view of Cho such that the second positive electrode active material layer (a) is thicker than the first positive electrode active material layer (b) (which overlaps the claimed range of 3b≤a)1 such that the appropriate coating of the corresponding active materials is achieved, as taught by Zaghib.
1 In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,614,725. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim sets have overlapping scopes. While the instant claims omit the conductive material as defined in Patent 12,614,725, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery as defined in the claims of Patent 12, 614,725 would still read on the instantly claimed positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery.
Instant Claim 1:
A positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery, comprising: a current collector; a first positive electrode active material layer on at least one surface of the current collector, and a second positive electrode active material layer on the first positive electrode active material layer, wherein the first positive electrode active material layer comprising comprises at least one type of positive electrode active material particles selected from the group consisting of primary macroparticles having an average particle size (D50) of 0.5 to 3 µm, secondary particles having an average particle size (D50) of 3 to 7 µm formed by agglomeration of the primary macroparticles and a mixture thereof; and a second positive electrode active material layer on the first positive electrode active material layer, the second positive electrode active material layer comprises bimodal positive electrode active materials including positive electrode active material secondary microparticle and positive electrode active material secondary macroparticles,+ wherein the positive electrode active material secondary microparticles having have an average particle size (D50) of 1 to 7 µm formed by agglomeration of the primary macroparticles having an average particle size (D50) of 0.5 to 3 µm or by agglomeration of primary microparticles having a smaller average particle size (D50) than the primary macroparticles, and wherein the positive electrode active material secondary macroparticles having have an average particle size (D50) of 7 to 20 um formed by agglomeration of the primary microparticles having a smaller average particle size (D50) than the primary macroparticles, wherein the average particle size (D50) of the secondary macroparticles is larger than the average particle size (D50) of the secondary microparticles, wherein the positive electrode active material particles are a nickel-based lithium transition metal oxide positive electrode active material.
Patent 12,614,725 Claim 1:
A positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery, comprising: a current collector; a first positive electrode active material layer on at least one a first surface of the current collector and a second positive electrode active material layer on the first positive electrode active material layer, wherein the first positive electrode active material layer comprising includes a first positive electrode active material particle and a conductive material, the first positive electrode active material particle including at least one type of positive electrode active material particles selected from the group consisting of a primary macroparticle having an average particle size (D50) of 0.5 to 3 µm, a secondary particle having an average particle size (D50) of 3 to 7 µm formed by agglomeration of the-primary macroparticle, or a mixture thereof, a second positive electrode active material layer on the first positive electrode active material layer, wherein the second positive electrode active material layer comprising includes a second positive electrode active material particle and a conductive material, the second positive electrode active material particle including: a secondary microparticle having an average particle size (D50) of 1 to 7 µm formed by agglomeration of the primary macroparticle having an average particle size (D50) of 0.5 to 3 µm or by agglomeration of a primary microparticle having a smaller average particle size (D50) than the first primary macroparticle, and a secondary macroparticle having an average particle size (D50) of 7 to 20 µm formed by agglomeration of the primary microparticle having a smaller average particle size (D50) than the primary macroparticle, wherein an average particle size (D50) of the secondary macroparticle is larger than the average particle size (D50) of the secondary microparticle, wherein the first and second positive electrode active material particles are a nickel-based lithium transition metal oxide positive electrode active material, and wherein the conductive material included in the second positive electrode active material layer comprises includes a first single-walled carbon nanotube.
Instant Claim 2:
The positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the average particle size (D50) of the primary microparticles is 100 to 900 nm.
Patent 12,614,725 Claim 2:
The positive electrode according to claim 1, wherein the average particle size (D50) of the primary microparticles is 100 to 900 nm.
Instant Claim 3:
The positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the average particle size (D50) of the primary microparticles is 100 to 400 nm.
Patent 12,614,725 Claim 3:
The positive electrode according to claim 1, wherein the average particle size (D50) of the primary microparticles is 100 to 400 nm.
Instant Claim 4:
The positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein an average crystallite size of the primary macroparticles included in the first positive electrode active material layer is equal to or larger than 200 nm.
Patent 12,614,725 Claim 4:
The positive electrode according to claim 1, wherein an average crystallite size of the primary macroparticles included in the first positive electrode active material layer is equal to or larger than 200 nm.
Instant Claim 5:
The positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the average particle size (D50) of the primary macroparticles included in the first and the second positive electrode active material layers is 1 to 3 µm.
Patent 12,614,725 Claim 5:
The positive electrode according to claim 1, wherein the average particle size (D50) of the primary macroparticles included in the first and the second positive electrode active material layers is 1 to 3 µm.
Instant Claim 6:
The positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the average particle size (D50) of the secondary microparticles is 2 to 5 µm, and the average particle size (D50) of the secondary macroparticles is 8 to 16 µm.
Patent 12,614,725 Claim 6:
The positive electrode according to claim 1, wherein the average particle size (D50) of the secondary microparticles is 2 to 5 µm, and the average particle size (D50) of the secondary macroparticles is 8 to 16 µm.
Instant Claim 7:
The positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the a ratio of the average particle size (D50) of the secondary macroparticles to the average particle size (D50) of the secondary microparticles is in a range of 5:1 to 2:1.
Patent 12,614,725 Claim 7:
The positive electrode according to claim 1, wherein the a ratio of the average particle size (D50) of the secondary macroparticles to the average particle size (D50) of the secondary microparticles is in a range of 5:1 to 2:1.
Instant Claim 8:
The positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the secondary microparticles are present in an amount of 10 to 100 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the secondary macroparticles.
Patent 12,614,725 Claim 8:
The positive electrode according to claim 1, wherein the secondary microparticles are present in an amount of 10 to 100 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the secondary macroparticles.
Instant Claim 9:
The positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein a thickness (a) of the second positive electrode active material layer meets the following equation relative to a thickness (b) of the first positive electrode active material layer: (Equation) 3b≤a.
Patent 12,614,725 Claim 9:
The positive electrode according to claim 1, wherein a thickness (a) of the second positive electrode active material layer meets the following equation relative to a thickness (b) of the first positive electrode active material layer: (Equation) 3b≤a.
Instant Claim 10:
The positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the secondary microparticles are agglomerates of the primary microparticles alone.
Patent 12,614,725 Claim 10:
The positive electrode according to claim 1, wherein the secondary microparticles are agglomerates of the primary microparticles alone.
Instant Claim 11:
The positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the nickel-based lithium transition metal oxide is represented by LiaNi1-x-yCoxM1yM2wO2,wherein 1.0≤a≤1.5,0≤x≤0.2,0≤y≤0.2, 0≤w≤0.1, 0≤x+y≤0.2, M1 is at least one metal selected from the group consisting of Mn and Al, and M2 is at least one metal selected from the group consisting of Ba, Ca, Zr, Ti, Mg, Ta, Nb and Mo.
Patent 12,614,725 Claim 11:
The positive electrode according to claim 1, wherein the nickel-based lithium transition metal oxide is represented by LiaNi1-x-yCoxM1yM2wO2,wherein 1.0≤a≤1.5,0≤x≤0.2,0≤y≤0.2, 0≤w≤0.1, 0≤x+y≤0.2, M1 is at least one metal selected from the group consisting of Mn and Al, and M2 is at least one metal selected from the group consisting of Ba, Ca, Zr, Ti, Mg, Ta, Nb and Mo.
Instant Claim 12:
The positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 11, wherein the nickel-based lithium transition metal oxide is represented by LiaNi1-x-yCoxMnyO2, wherein 1.0≤a≤1.5,0≤x≤0.2,0≤y≤0.2, 0≤x+y≤0.2.
Patent 12,614,725 Claim 12:
The positive electrode battery according to claim 11, wherein the nickel-based lithium transition metal oxide is represented by LiaNi1-x-yCoxMnyO2, wherein 1.0≤a≤1.5,0≤x≤0.2,0≤y≤0.2, 0≤x+y≤0.2.
Instant Claim 13:
A lithium secondary battery comprising the positive electrode according to claim 1.
Patent 12,614,725 Claim 15:
A lithium secondary battery comprising the positive electrode according to claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVIA MASON MELFI whose telephone number is (703)756-4652. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7am-6pm 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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571)272-1481. 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.
/O.M.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights