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 .
This action is responsive to the amendment filed on March 23, 2026.
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the same resaons provided in the previous office action.
The rejection of claims 13, 17, 19 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nam et al is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
The rejction of claims 1-4, 6-9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam et al in view of Lee et al is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
Claims 10-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam et al in view of Lee et al.
The rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam et al is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
The rejection of claim 14 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam et al in view of Lee et al is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
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 1-4, 6-9 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. Claim 1 recites “where the dopant is uniformly doped into the surface region of the NMC, wherein an amount of dopant doped into the surface region nearer an outer surface of the NMC is larger than an amount of dopant doped in the surface region nearer the core region of the NMC”; this renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how the dopant can be both uniformly doped into the surface region and the amount of dopant near the outer surface is great then the core. For prior art purposes, the Examiner construes this limitation as “wherein an amount of dopant doped into the surface region nearer an outer surface of the NMC is larger than an amount of dopant doped in the surface region nearer the core region of the NMC”. Also, claim 1 recites “the doped cathode material is substantially without phase transitions”; this renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear what constitutes “substantially”. Claims 2-4, 6-9 are subsumed under the rejection.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam et al (WO Patent 2018/117506 (already of record)) in view of Choi et al (KR20140081663 (already of record, translation provided)).
To further advance the prosecution of this invention, Nam et al (US Patent Application 2019/0341598) which is an English equivalent of (WO Patent 2018/117506) will be used in this rejection
Regarding claims 1-4, 6-9, Nam et al teaches a nickel based lithium oxide and doping element (Abstract). Nam et al further teaches NMC cathode active material (Fig 7). Nam et al further teaches a nickel based lithium metal oxide particles represented by the formula: Lim[Ni1-w4-x4-y4-z4Cow4M1x4M2y4M3z4]nO2-p4Xp4, wherein M1 can be Mn, M2 is Zr and M3 is Al (Paragraphs 16-19). Nam et al further teaches Zr and Al as dopants (which satisfies ionic radium of 50pm or greater) (Paragraphs 96-99). Nam et al further teaches 0<y4≤0.006, 0<z4≤0.006 (which satisfies claimed 0.6mol% of dopant) (Paragraph 21). Nam et al further teaches M1, M2 and M3 (which includes the dopant) have a concentration gradient in which the molar content gradually increases from the interface to the outermost periphery (Paragraph 178). Nam et al further teaches up to a radium of 75% is the core portion and the outer part constitutes the shell portion (which satisfies claimed NMC includes a surface region and a core region wherein the volume of the core region is larger than the volume of the surface region) (Paragraph 209). Nam et al further teaches Equation 3: R2/(R2+D2)*100% is preferably 50% or more, wherein R2 is the radium of the core and D2 is the thickness of the shell (which satisfies claimed NMC includes a surface region and a core region wherein the volume of the core region is larger than the volume of the surface region) (Paragraph 111-113). Nam et al teaches the surface residual lithium was removed by washing with water (Paragraph 235). Nam et al further teaches a D50 of the lithium metal oxide particles is 10-30µm (Paragraph 101). Nam et al further teaches the molar content of nickel is 80% or more (Paragraph 123). Nam et al further teaches a wet coprecipitation method to obtain lithium metal oxide particles doped with Zr and Al (which satisfies claimed dopant is uniformly doped) (Paragraphs 129-135). However, Nam et al fails to specifically disclose less than 10,000ppm of residual lithium salts present on the surface of the doped cathode material and the doped material is substantially without phase transitions.
In the same field of endeavor, Choi et al teaches a cathode active material for a battery wherein the amount of unreacted lithium in the material is reduced by introducing a washing process and metal coating; high capacity and stability are ensured by improving the property of deterioration during washing while reducing the amount of unreacted lithium ions in cathode active materials (Abstract). Choi et al further teaches less than 10,000ppm of lithium (Table 1). Choi et al further teaches washing the active material with water or an alkaline aqueous solution, reacting with a metal/dopant, heat treating to dope and surface coat the active material (Paragraphs 15-19, 32).
With regard to less than 10,000ppm of residual lithium salts present on the surface of the doped cathode material, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provide less than 10,000ppm of residual lithium salts in Nam et al in view of Lee et al as Nam et al already encompasses removing residual lithium from the surface by washing with water wherein Lee et al teaches washing the electrode active material provides less than 10,000ppm of impurities as an intermediate step before providing the final coating/doped material; changing the order of when to perform the washing would only be obvious to the ordinary artisan.
With regard to the doped material is substantially without phase transitions, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have expected for the doped material to be substantially without phase transitions in Nam et al in view of Lee et al as Lee et al teaches by incorporation of a washing step with water or alkaline solution followed by the doping/surface treatment avoids the degradation characteristics while providing decreased amount of lithium impurities.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam et al (WO Patent 2018/117506 (already of record)) in view of Lee et al (US Patent Application 2019/0036119 (already of record)).
To further advance the prosecution of this invention, Nam et al (US Patent Application 2019/0341598) which is an English equivalent of (WO Patent 2018/117506) will be used in this rejection
Regarding claims 10-12, Nam et al teaches a nickel based lithium oxide and doping element (Abstract). Nam et al further teaches NMC cathode active material (Fig 7). Nam et al further teaches a nickel based lithium metal oxide particles represented by the formula: Lim[Ni1-w4-x4-y4-z4Cow4M1x4M2y4M3z4]nO2-p4Xp4, wherein M1 can be Mn, M2 is Zr and M3 is Al (Paragraphs 16-19). Nam et al further teaches Zr and Al as dopants (which satisfies ionic radium of 50pm or greater) (Paragraphs 96-99). Nam et al further teaches 0<y4≤0.006, 0<z4≤0.006 (which satisfies claimed 0.6mol% of dopant) (Paragraph 21). Nam et al further teaches M1, M2 and M3 (which includes the dopant) have a concentration gradient in which the molar content gradually increases from the interface to the outermost periphery (Paragraph 178). Nam et al further teaches up to a radium of 75% is the core portion and the outer part constitutes the shell portion (which satisfies claimed NMC includes a surface region and a core region wherein the volume of the core region is larger than the volume of the surface region) (Paragraph 209). Nam et al further teaches Equation 3: R2/(R2+D2)*100% is preferably 50% or more, wherein R2 is the radium of the core and D2 is the thickness of the shell (which satisfies claimed NMC includes a surface region and a core region wherein the volume of the core region is larger than the volume of the surface region) (Paragraph 111-113). Nam et al teaches the surface residual lithium was removed by washing with water (Paragraph 235). Nam et al further teaches a D50 of the lithium metal oxide particles is 10-30µm (Paragraph 101). Nam et al further teaches the molar content of nickel is 80% or more (Paragraph 123). Nam et al further teaches a wet coprecipitation method to obtain lithium metal oxide particles doped with Zr and Al (which satisfies claimed dopant is uniformly doped) (Paragraphs 129-135). However, Nam et al fails to specifically disclose less than 10,000ppm of residual lithium salts present on the surface of the doped cathode material.
In the same field of endeavor, Lee et al teaches a lithium composite metal oxide doped with metallic elements (Paragraphs 14-16). Lee et al further teaches washing the impurities from the electrode active materials to provide less than 10,000ppm (Paragraphs 160-162, Table 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provide less than 10,000ppm of residual lithium salts in Nam et al in view of Lee et al as Nam et al already encompasses removing residual lithium from the surface by washing with water wherein Lee et al teaches washing the electrode active material provides less than 10,000ppm of impurities.
With respect to the product by process limitations, any difference imparted by the product by process limitations would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made because where the examiner has found a substantially similar product as in the applied prior art, the burden of proof is shifted to the applicant to establish that their product is patentably distinct, not the examiner to show the same process of making, see In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685 and In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324.
Claims 13, 17, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam et al (WO Patent 2018/117506 (already of record)) in view of Choi et al (KR20140081663 (already of record, translation provided)).
To further advance the prosecution of this invention, Nam et al (US Patent Application 2019/0341598) which is an English equivalent of (WO Patent 2018/117506) will be used in this rejection
Regarding claims 13, 17, 19-20, Nam et al teaches a nickel based lithium oxide and doping element (Abstract). Nam et al further teaches NMC cathode active material (Fig 7). Nam et al further teaches a nickel based lithium metal oxide particles represented by the formula: Lim[Ni1-w4-x4-y4-z4Cow4M1x4M2y4M3z4]nO2-p4Xp4, wherein M1 can be Mn, M2 is Zr and M3 is Al (Paragraphs 16-19). Nam et al further teaches Zr and Al as dopants (which satisfies ionic radium of 50pm or greater) (Paragraphs 96-99). Nam et al further teaches the shell portion having the formula Lim[Ni1-w6-x6-y6-z6Cow6M1x6M2y6M3z6]nO2-p6Xp6, wherein M1 can be Mn, M2 is Zr and M3 is Al, wherein 0<w6≤0.3 and 0<x6≤0.3 (Paragraphs 36-42). Nam et al further teaches up to a radium of 75% is the core portion and the outer part constitutes the shell portion (which satisfies claimed NMC includes a surface region and a core region wherein the volume of the core region is larger than the volume of the surface region) (Paragraph 209). Nam et al further teaches Equation 3: R2/(R2+D2)*100% is preferably 50% or more, wherein R2 is the radium of the core and D2 is the thickness of the shell (Paragraph 111-113). Nam et al further teaches a wet coprecipitation method to obtain lithium metal oxide particles doped with Zr and Al (which satisfies claimed dopant is uniformly doped) (Paragraphs 129-135). Nam et al teaches the surface residual lithium was removed by washing with water (Paragraph 235). Nam et al further teaches a D50 of the lithium metal oxide particles is 10-30µm (which overlaps the instantly claimed range) (Paragraph 101). Nam et al further teaches a wet coprecipitation method to obtain lithium metal oxide particles doped with Zr and Al (which satisfies claimed dopant is uniformly doped) (Paragraphs 129-135). Nam et al further teaches lithium salts, water and doping raw materials were homogeneously mixed with the cathode active material precursor, heat treated to dope the surface (which satisfies claimed coated cathode material including a precipitate coating of a cation of the dopant and anion of lithium salt) (Paragraphs 220-223). However, Nam et al fails to specifically disclose less than 10,000ppm of residual lithium salts present on the surface of the doped cathode material and the doped material is substantially without phase transitions.
In the same field of endeavor, Choi et al teaches a cathode active material for a battery wherein the amount of unreacted lithium in the material is reduced by introducing a washing process and metal coating; high capacity and stability are ensured by improving the property of deterioration during washing while reducing the amount of unreacted lithium ions in cathode active materials (Abstract). Choi et al further teaches less than 10,000ppm of lithium (Table 1). Choi et al further teaches washing the active material with water or an alkaline aqueous solution, reacting with a metal/dopant, heat treating to dope and surface coat the active material (Paragraphs 15-19, 32).
With regard to less than 10,000ppm of residual lithium salts present on the surface of the doped cathode material, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provide less than 10,000ppm of residual lithium salts in Nam et al in view of Lee et al as Nam et al already encompasses removing residual lithium from the surface by washing with water wherein Lee et al teaches washing the electrode active material provides less than 10,000ppm of impurities as an intermediate step before providing the final coating/doped material; changing the order of when to perform the washing would only be obvious to the ordinary artisan.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam et al (WO Patent 2018/117506 (already of record)) in view of Choi et al (KR20140081663 (already of record, translation provided)) as applied to claims 13, 17, 19-20 above, and further in view of Lee et al (US Patent Application 2019/0036119 (already of record)).
To further advance the prosecution of this invention, Nam et al (US Patent Application 2019/0341598) which is an English equivalent of (WO Patent 2018/117506) will be used in this rejection.
Regarding claim 18, Nam et al and Choi et al disclose the invention substantially as claimed. Nam et al and Choi et al teach the features above. However, Nam et al and Choi et al fail to specifically disclose aggregated primary particles forming secondary particles.
In the same field of endeavor, Lee et al teaches a lithium composite metal oxide doped with metallic elements (Paragraphs 14-16). Lee et al further teaches the electrode active material can be secondary particles in which the primary particles are assembled in order to provide better output characteristics (Paragraph 115).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided aggregated primary particles forming secondary particles in Nam et al in view of Lee et al in order to provide better output characteristics as taught in Lee et al.
Response to Arguments
With regard to the 112(b) rejection and the obviousness rejection over Nam et al in view of Lee et al over claims 10-12, Applicant's arguments filed March 23, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the 112(b) rejection, the claim has not been amended as Applicant asserts. With regard to the obviousness rejection over Nam et al in view of Lee et al, Applicant argues that Nam et al fails to teach the limitations in claim 10 and the claimed limitations are not product by process limitations. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above argument because any difference imparted by the product by process limitations would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made because where the examiner has found a substantially similar product as in the applied prior art, the burden of proof is shifted to the applicant to establish that their product is patentably distinct, not the examiner to show the same process of making, see In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685 and In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324. Nam et al further teaches lithium salts, water and doping raw materials were homogeneously mixed with the cathode active material precursor, heat treated to dope the surface (which satisfies claimed coated cathode material including a precipitate coating of a cation of the dopant and anion of lithium salt) (Paragraphs 220-223).
With respect to the rejection over Nam et al in view of Lee et al, the rejection is withdrawn. A new rejection over Nam et al in view of Choi et al has been applied.
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 TANISHA DIGGS whose telephone number is (571)270-7730. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Tuesday and Friday, 9:00AM-5:30PM.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at (571) 272-2817. 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.
/TANISHA DIGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761 May 29, 2026
Prosecution Insights