DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.
Applicant's submission filed on April 21, 2026, has been entered. Claims 1-22 are pending in the application. Of the pending claims, claims 14-20 have been withdrawn from consideration.
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 and 21-22 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.
In line 16 of claim 1, insert “the” before lithium fluoride to clarify antecedent basis.
Claims 2-13 and 21-22 are rejected for being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claim 22 recites “the lithium manganese composite oxide is present on the surface of the secondary particle as one or more islands and the lithium fluoride is separately present on the surface of the secondary particle as one or more particles”.
This appears to be a separate embodiment (see paragraph [0070] of the present specification), wherein the lithium manganese composite oxide and the lithium fluoride are not mixed, but are each deposited separately on the surface of the secondary particle. Thus, the embodiment of claim 22 is indefinite, because it appears to conflict with the scope of claim 1.
In line 3 of claim 22, insert “the” before lithium fluoride to clarify antecedent basis.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 6 recites “the lithium manganese composite oxide is on the surface of the lithium-nickel based composite oxide”, which fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 1. Claim 1 recites the limitation of the lithium manganese composite oxide and the lithium fluoride are co-located on a surface of the secondary particle of the lithium nickel-based composite oxide as a mixture, which is narrower than the limitation of claim 6.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 10, 11, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170179470 A1 (Choi ‘470) in view of US 20090104532 A1 (Hosoya ‘532) and US 20180026268 A1 (Kim ‘268) and Composite ‘Layered-Layered-Spinel’ Cathode Structures for Lithium-Ion Batteries (Kim 2012 - provided in the IDS filed on June 29, 2024), and further in view of US 20170194637 A1 (Ahn ‘637).
Regarding claim 1, Choi ‘470 teaches a positive active material for a rechargeable lithium battery (a positive active material for a lithium battery; [0007] – [0009]), comprising:
a lithium-nickel based composite oxide (a first metal oxide represented by Formula 1; [0040]; wherein the first metal oxide of Formula 1 may be a compound represented by Formula 3: LiNixCoyMnzO2 wherein 0.7≦x≦0.99; 0<y<1; 0<z<1; and 0<x+y+z≦1; [0050]; a nickel-based composite oxide, because 0.7≦x≦0.99) and a lithium manganese composite oxide (a second metal oxide having at least one crystalline structure; [0040]; the at least one crystal structure being represented by Formula 4 or Formula 7, for example; [0051] –[0053]; wherein Formula 4 may be a compound having a layered crystalline structure, for example, Li2MnO3; [0054] and Formula 7 may be a compound having a spinel crystalline structure, for example, LiMn2O4; [0059]), and
a surface-modifying layer comprising lithium fluoride (the second metal oxide of the composite positive active material may be disposed on an entire surface of the composite positive active material; wherein the composite positive active material including the second metal oxide in a surface region thereof may exhibit an effect as if the surface of the first metal oxide is treated with the second metal oxide; [0071]; the composite positive active material may further include a coating layer on the surface thereof, the coating layer including an inorganic fluoride, the inorganic fluoride being LiF, for example; [0077] – [0083]).
Choi ‘470 further discloses the X-ray diffraction data for a number of preparation examples, all of which are comprised of intensity peaks corresponding with a (003) plane and a plane oriented perpendicular to the (003) plane, the (110) plane (Fig. 2 of Choi ‘470). As the amount of Li2MnO3 increased, the (003) peak shifted toward a lower angle (Fig. 3 of Choi ‘470). Thus, Choi ‘470 appears to disclose wherein the primary particles shown in the SEM images of Figs. 5A-5E are plate-shaped.
Choi ‘470 does not disclose that the lithium manganese composite oxide and the lithium fluoride are co-located on a surface of the secondary particle of the lithium-nickel based composite oxide as a mixture.
However, Hosoya ‘532 discloses a cathode active material for a secondary battery ([0038]) including: a composite oxide particle containing at least lithium and one or a plurality of transition metals; and a coating layer provided on at least a part of the composite oxide particle, wherein the coating layer contains at least one kind of element M differing from a main transition metal element A forming the composite oxide particle and selected from groups 2 to 16 of the periodic table and a halogen element X, and in the coating layer, the element M and the halogen element X exhibit different distribution states ([0020]). As an element M, manganese (Mn) may be preferred ([0050]). The halogen element X may be LiF ([0052]).
The cathode active material can be formed by the following method ([0110]). As a composite oxide particle serving as a mother particle, a lithium-contained transition metal oxide which can generally be obtained as a cathode active material is used as a starting raw material, the composite oxide particle and a compound containing the element M and the halogen element X with which the composite oxide particle is coated are ground and mixed, and the surface of the composite oxide particle is coated with the elements M and X ([0010]). Accordingly, an increase in internal resistance in the secondary battery containing the cathode active material can be suppressed and both of the large capacitance of the secondary battery and the improvement of the battery characteristics can be realized ([0116]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, modify the surface-modifying layer of the positive active material, as taught by Choi ‘470, to co-locate the compound containing M (lithium manganese composite oxide) and the halogen element X (LiF) in the surface-modifying layer as a mixture on a surface of the composite oxide particle, to suppress an internal resistance in the secondary battery and improve battery characteristics, as suggested by Hosoya ‘532.
While Choi ’470 additionally discloses images formed from an electron probe microanalyzer in Figs. 6A-6C and 7A-7B in which the positive active material of several examples appears to have a plurality of approximately spherically-shaped secondary structures with each having a radial center, Choi ‘470 does not explicitly disclose the secondary particle having a regular array structure in which (003) planes of the primary particles are oriented normal to an outer surface of the secondary particle
Kim ‘268 discloses a nickel-based active material, as exemplified in Formula 1 of paragraph [0076], and a lithium secondary battery including a positive electrode including the nickel-based active material (abstract). The nickel-based active material includes at least one secondary particle including an aggregate of two or more primary particles, wherein at least a portion of the secondary particle has a radial array structure (abstract). As shown in Fig. 1C of Kim ‘268, the secondary particles of the nickel-based active material have a single-center radial arrangement structure, wherein the primary particles are arranged radially around the one center (FIG. 1C). Moreover, the (003) planes (XRD analysis described in [0235] of Kim ‘268)) of the primary particles in FIG. 1C of Kim ‘268 appear to be oriented perpendicularly to an intersecting portion of an outer surface of the secondary particles, as is similarly shown in FIG. 1 of the presently filed specification. Furthermore, FIG. 3A of Kim ‘268 is an SEM image of a cross-section of Intermediate A of the secondary particle of the nickel-based active material of Example 1 having a radially arranged structure (FIG. 3A). FIG. 13A is another SEM image of a cross section of the positive electrode comprising the nickel-based active material that corresponds to FIG. 7 of the instant application, wherein the SEM image includes a secondary particle in which a plurality of plate-shaped primary particles are agglomerated, and the secondary particle has a single-centered radial arrangement having one center or a multi-centered radial stray structure having a plurality of centers ([00171] - [00172] of the presently filed specification & FIG. 7). Advantageously, the nickel-based active material for a lithium secondary battery has improved lifespan characteristics and reduced battery resistance due to suppression or reduction of crack formation during charge/discharge cycling ([0005]).
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art for the lithium nickel-based composite oxide of the positive active material, as taught by Choi ‘470, to comprise a secondary particle in which a plurality of plate-shaped primary particles are agglomerated, the secondary particle structure having one center with the primary particles arranged radially around the one center, or a structure having a plurality of centers with the primary particles arranged radially around the plurality of centers, as suggested by Kim ‘268, wherein the lithium secondary battery comprising the nickel-based active material has improved lifespan characteristics.
Choi ‘470 additionally discloses that the second metal oxide has at least one crystal structure selected from a layered structure, a perovskite structure, a rock salt structure, and a spinel structure ([0051]).
Further, Kim 2012 teaches a layered-layered-spinel structure for a composite of lithium manganese oxides for use as a cathode material in lithium-ion batteries (abstract). Kim also teaches a procedure in which stoichiometric amounts of metal sulfates (Mn, Co, and Ni) were stirred and then co-precipitated, filtered, washed, dried, and calcined to form a layered-layered-spinel compound with a targeted spinel content of 6% (pg. A32, Experimental para. 1). The compound has layered structures corresponding with Li2MnO3 and LiMnO2 and additionally a spinel composition formed from LiMn2O4 (Pg. A33, Results para. 1). This layered-layered-spinel compound exhibits enhanced electrochemical capacity on cycling, a higher rate capability, and a lower area-specific-impedance in a full lithium-ion cell configuration, as compared with layered-layered electrodes having no spinel content (pg. A37, Conclusions).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the lithium manganese composite oxide of the positive active material, as taught by Choi ‘470, to have two or more types of crystal lattice structures, as suggested by Kim 2012, in seeking to provide enhanced electrochemical capacity.
Choi ‘470 discloses that the amount of lithium in the composite may be about 15,000 ppm or less, however, Choi ‘470 does not disclose that the positive active material comprises 1,000 ppm or less of unreacted residual lithium at the surface thereof.
Ahn ‘637 discloses a composite cathode active material that may include a first metal oxide and a second metal oxide ([0039]). The composite cathode active material includes the second metal oxide so that the composite cathode active material may have improved structural stability ([0042]). The second metal oxide is formed by a reaction between residual lithium present on a surface of the composite cathode active material and a precursor of the second metal oxide ([0042]). Thus, the amount of free lithium present inside the composite cathode active material and on a surface of the composite cathode active material may be reduced, thereby suppressing a side reaction between the composite cathode active material and an electrolyte ([0042]). An amount of the residual lithium in the composite cathode active material may be less than or equal to about 1,000 ppm ([0047]). The smaller the amount of residual lithium in the composite cathode active material, the more the side reaction between the composite cathode active material and an electrolyte is suppressed ([0047]). Accordingly, gas generation in the composite cathode active material may be suppressed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the positive active material, as taught by Choi ‘470, to reduce the amount of residual lithium to an amount of 1,000 ppm or less of unreacted residual lithium at the surface thereof, to suppress generation in the composite cathode active material, as suggested by Ahn ‘637.
Regarding claim 2, Choi ‘470 teaches the positive active material of claim 1, wherein the secondary particle has a single-centered radial arrangement having one center or a multi-centered radial array structure having a plurality of centers (as shown in Fig. 1C of Kim ‘268, the secondary particles of the nickel-based active material have a single-center radial arrangement structure, wherein the primary particles are arranged radially around the one center).
Regarding claim 4, Choi ‘470 teaches the positive active material of claim 1, wherein the positive active material comprises 1,000 ppm or less of unreacted residual lithium at the surface of the lithium nickel-based composite oxide (an amount of the residual lithium in the composite cathode active material may be less than or equal to about 1,000 ppm; [0047] of Ahn ‘637).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Regarding claim 6, Choi ‘470 teaches the positive active material of claim 1, wherein the lithium manganese composite oxide is on the surface of the lithium nickel-based composite oxide (the second metal oxide of the composite positive active material may be disposed on an entire surface of the composite positive active material; wherein the composite positive active material including the second metal oxide in a surface region thereof may exhibit an effect as if the surface of the first metal oxide is treated with the second metal oxide; [0071] of Choi ‘470).
Regarding claim 10, Choi ‘470 teaches the positive active material of claim 1, wherein the lithium manganese composite oxide has an average particle diameter (D50) of less than or equal to 10 µm (the composite positive active material may have an average particle diameter of secondary particles of about 5 µm to about 20 µm; [0074] of Choi ‘470).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Regarding claim 11, Choi ‘470 teaches the positive active material of claim 1, wherein the lithium manganese composite oxide is included in an amount of 0.25 mol to 1.5 mol based on 100 mol of the lithium nickel-based composite oxide (the mole fraction of the second metal oxide may be greater than 0 and equal to or less than 0.2 moles, per mole of the composite; [0040] of Choi ‘470).
While Choi ‘470 does not specifically disclose the claimed range of 0.25 mol to 1.5 mole based on 100 mole of the lithium nickel-based composite oxide, Choi ‘470 does disclose that when the mole fraction of the second metal oxide in the composite positive active material is greater than 0.2, the amount of residual lithium may be reduced, but may have deteriorated cell performance ([0043] of Choi ‘470). Likewise, the present specification discloses that when the lithium manganese composite oxide is included in an amount greater than or equal to about 0.25 mol, for example, the amount of residual lithium and generated gas may be reduced ([0067] of the present specification).
Thus, the amount of the lithium manganese composite oxide included is considered a known results effective variable that can be optimized based on routine experimentation. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the positive active material, as taught by Choi ‘470, to include the lithium manganese composite oxide in an amount of 0.25 mol to 1.5 mol based on 100 mol of the lithium nickel-based composite oxide, as suggested by Choi ‘470, in seeking to reduce the amount of residual lithium without excessive deterioration in cell performance, based on routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 21, Choi ‘470 further teaches a rechargeable lithium battery (a lithium battery; abstract & [0174]), comprising: a positive electrode comprising the positive active material (a positive electrode including the composite positive active material; abstract & [0174] – [0176]) of claim 1 (see claim 1 above); a negative electrode (a negative electrode; [0124]; a lithium metal as a counter electrode; [0176]); and an electrolyte (an electrolyte; [0176]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170179470 A1 (Choi ‘470) in view of US 20090104532 A1 (Hosoya ‘532), US 20180026268 A1 (Kim ‘268), Composite ‘Layered-Layered-Spinel’ Cathode Structures for Lithium-Ion Batteries (Kim 2012 - provided in the IDS filed on June 29, 2024), and US 20170194637 A1 (Ahn ‘637), and further in view of US 20120064410 A1 (Kim ‘410).
Regarding claim 3, Choi ‘470 teaches the positive active material according to claim 1, but does not provide details regarding the porosity of the nickel-based composite oxide.
Kim ‘410 discloses a positive electrode plate that includes particles of a nickel-based composite oxide represented by Formula 1, wherein the nickel-based composite oxide may have a porosity of about 1% to about 40% ([0016]). The porosity of the nickel-based composite oxide particles may be from about 0.01% to about 30% ([0046]). When the porosity of the nickel-based composite oxide particles is within this range, the area of reaction with the electrode may be sufficiently small as to suppress side reactions, and thus, the battery may have improved performance ([0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the lithium nickel-based composite oxide of the positive electrode active material, as taught by Choi ‘470, to have a porosity of 1% to 8%, as suggested by Kim ‘410, to suppress side reactions, which may improve battery performance.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170179470 A1 (Choi ‘470) in view of US 20090104532 A1 (Hosoya ‘532), US 20180026268 A1 (Kim ‘268), Composite ‘Layered-Layered-Spinel’ Cathode Structures for Lithium-Ion Batteries (Kim 2012 - provided in the IDS filed on June 29, 2024), and US 20170194637 A1 (Ahn ‘637), and further in view of US 20170271653 A1 (Yamauchi ‘653).
Regarding claim 5, Choi ‘470 teaches the positive active material of claim 1, but does not specifically disclose that the lithium nickel-based composite oxide has a specific surface area of 0.4 m2/g to 1.0 m2/g.
Yamauchi ‘653 discloses a positive electrode active material that has a lithium-nickel composite oxide including plate-shaped secondary particles aggregated with overlaps between plate surfaces of multiple plate-shaped primary particles ([0144]). The positive electrode active material preferably has a specific surface area of 0.3 m2/g to 2 m2/g ([00162]). The adjustment of the specific surface area to the above range achieves favorable battery characteristics, and can also ensure safety and high-temperature stability ([0162]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the lithium nickel based composite oxide of the positive active material, as taught by Choi ‘470, to have a specific surface area within 0.4 m2/g to 1.0 m2/g, to achieve favorable battery characteristics, as suggested by Yamauchi ‘653.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170179470 A1 (Choi ‘470) in view of US 20090104532 A1 (Hosoya ‘532), US 20180026268 A1 (Kim ‘268), Composite ‘Layered-Layered-Spinel’ Cathode Structures for Lithium-Ion Batteries (Kim 2012 - provided in the IDS filed on June 29, 2024), and US 20170194637 A1 (Ahn ‘637), and further in view of US 20180138495 A1 (Solan ‘495).
Regarding claim 7, Choi ‘470 teaches the positive active material of claim 1, wherein the manganese composite oxide is formed with LiMn2O4 ([0059] of Choi ‘470), but does not explicitly disclose that manganese composite oxide is also formed with LiMnO2 and Li4Mn5O12.
Solan ‘495 discloses a positive electrode active material that comprises at least one element chosen among LiMn2O4, LiMnO2, and Li4Mn5O12. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select LiMn2O4, LiMnO2, and Li4Mn5O12 as the lithium manganese composite oxide, because the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170179470 A1 (Choi ‘470) in view of US 20090104532 A1 (Hosoya ‘532), US 20180026268 A1 (Kim ‘268), Composite ‘Layered-Layered-Spinel’ Cathode Structures for Lithium-Ion Batteries (Kim 2012 - provided in the IDS filed on June 29, 2024), and US 20170194637 A1 (Ahn ‘637), and further in view of US 20180138495 A1 (Solan ‘495) and Cycle mechanism and electrochemical properties of lithium manganese oxide prepared using different Mn Sources (Park 2008 - provided in the IDS filed on June 29, 2024).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Choi ‘470 teaches the positive active material of claim 1, but does not disclose that the lithium manganese composite oxide has a cubic crystal lattic structure and a monoclinic crystal lattice structure, or has the cubic crystal lattice structure, the monoclinic crystal lattice structure, and an orthorhombic crystal lattice structure, wherein the lithium manganese composite oxide having the cubic crystal lattice structure is at least one of LiMn2O4 and Li4Mn5O12, the lithium manganese composite oxide having the monolithic crystal lattice structure is LiMnO2, and the lithium manganese composite oxide having the orthorhombic crystal lattice structure is LiMnO2.
Solan ‘495 discloses a positive electrode active material that comprises at least one element chosen among LiMn2O4, LiMnO2, and Li4Mn5O12. Solan ‘495 does not explicitly disclose the crystal lattice structure of the lithium manganese oxides disclosed above.
However, Park 2008 discloses lithium manganese oxides of three different stoichiometric compositions, each with its own crystal lattice structure (pg. 696, left column), wherein a composition with formula LiMn2O4 is cubic, LiMnO2 may be either orthorhombic or monoclinic, and Li2MnO3 is monoclinic.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the lithium manganese composite oxide to possesses a crystal lattice structure with a cubic structure corresponding to the LiMn2O4 component, a monoclinic structure corresponding to the Li2MnO3 component, and an orthorhombic structure corresponding to the LiMnO2 component, as suggested by Solan ‘495 and Park 2008, in the positive active material, as taught by Choi ‘470, because the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170179470 A1 (Choi ‘470) in view of US 20090104532 A1 (Hosoya ‘532), US 20180026268 A1 (Kim ‘268), Composite ‘Layered-Layered-Spinel’ Cathode Structures for Lithium-Ion Batteries (Kim 2012 - provided in the IDS filed on June 29, 2024), and US 20170194637 A1 (Ahn ‘637), and further in view of US 20120261610 A1 (Paulsen ‘610).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Choi ‘470 teaches the positive active material of claim 1, but does not specifically disclose that the lithium fluoride is in a particle shape, wherein the lithium fluoride is included in an amount of 0.25 mol to 1.0 mol based on 100 mol of the lithium nickel-based composite oxide.
Paulsen ‘610 teaches a lithium transition metal oxide powder for use in a rechargeable battery, where the surface of the primary particles of said powder is coated with a LiF layer, where this layer consists of a reaction product of a fluorine-containing polymer and the primary particle surface (abstract). Examples of the fluorine-containing polymer are either one of PVDF, PVDF-HFP, or PTFE (abstract & [0025])). The lithium transition metal oxide may contain nickel and manganese in some embodiments (abstract & [0020] - [0024]). The fluorine-containing polymer may be included in an amount of 0.1% to 2% by weight ([0057]). If the polymer loading is less than 0.1%, then it is difficult to achieve a good film ([0057]). If it exceeds 2%, then the capacity of the powder could be lowered ([0057]). Thus, the amount of amount of lithium fluoride included is considered a known results effective variable that can be optimized by a person of ordinary skill in the art.
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the positive active material, as taught by Choi ‘470, to include the lithium fluoride in an amount of 0.25 mol to 1.0 mol based on 100 mol of the lithium nickel-based composite oxide, as suggested by Paulsen ‘610, in seeking to achieve a good film, without lowering capacity, based on routine experimentation, wherein the LiF is in a particle shape, because the LiF layer consists of a reaction product of a fluorine-containing polymer and the primary particle surface, formed with PVDF.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170179470 A1 (Choi ‘470) in view of US 20090104532 A1 (Hosoya ‘532), US 20180026268 A1 (Kim ‘268), Composite ‘Layered-Layered-Spinel’ Cathode Structures for Lithium-Ion Batteries (Kim 2012 - provided in the IDS filed on June 29, 2024), and US 20170194637 A1 (Ahn ‘637), and further in view of US 20140065483 A1 (Park ‘483) and US 20150243971 A1 (Cho ‘971).
Regarding claim 22, Choi ‘470 teaches the positive active material of claim 1, but does not specifically disclose that the lithium manganese composite oxide is present on the surface of the secondary particle as one or more islands and the lithium fluoride is separately present on the surface of the secondary particle as one or more particles.
Park ‘483 discloses that a positive active material 10 that may have a structure whereby a lithiated oxide 12 is coated with a lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide 14 on the surface, wherein the coating may be performed in an island shape ([0045]).
Choi ‘971 discloses that the coating layer may have LiF particles scattered on the surface of the lithium transition metal composite oxide core to maintain high capacity and decrease gas generation ([0055]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, for the lithium manganese composite oxide to be present on the surface of the secondary particle as one or more islands and the lithium fluoride to be separately present on the surface of the secondary particle as one or more particles, as suggested by Park ‘483 and Choi ‘971, in the positive active material, as taught by Choi ‘470, because the use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.).
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 and 21-22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. US 12034149 B2 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other, because claims 1-13 and 21-22 of the present application overlap in scope with claims 1-11 and 19 of the reference application.
Reference claim 1 and reference claim 3 overlap in scope with present claim 1, present claim 2, present claim 6, present claim 11, present claim 13, and present claim 22, because present claim 1 essentially includes all of the limitations of reference claim 1 in addition to the limitation of reference claim 3, overlapping in scope, wherein the claims of the present application, as currently claimed, are not patentably distinct from the claims of the reference application.
Reference claim 2 and present claim 3 recite the same limitation.
Reference claim 4 and present claim 4 recite the same limitation.
Reference claim 5 and present claim 5 recite the same limitation.
Reference claim 6 and present claim 7 recite the same limitation.
Reference claim 7 and present claim 8 recite the same limitation.
Reference claim 8 and present claim 9 recite the same limitation.
Reference claim 9 and present claim 10 recite the same limitation.
Reference claim 10 and present claim 12 recite the same limitation.
Reference claim 19 and present claim 21 recite the same limitation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 21, 2026, have been fully considered.
Applicant’s assertion that US 20130078518 A1 (Thackeray ‘518) does not disclose that the lithium manganese composite oxide and the lithium fluoride are co-located on the surface of the secondary particle of the lithium nickel-based composite oxide as a mixture is persuasive. Accordingly, a new ground of rejection is presented in this Office action in view of US 20090104532 A1 (Hosoya ‘532).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20160276659 A1 (Choi ‘659) discloses a lithium secondary battery including a core made of a compound reversibly intercalating and deintercalating lithium; and a coating layer positioned on at least a portion of a surface of the compound, wherein the coating layer is a composite coating layer containing Li3PO4 and LiF, and further containing a lithium metal compound, a metal oxide, and a metal fluoride compound, and/or a combination thereof, and the core is doped with fluorine ([0014]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAYLOR H KRONE whose telephone number is (571)270-5064. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM - 6:00 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, NICOLE BUIE-HATCHER can be reached at 571-270-3879. 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.
/TAYLOR HARRISON KRONE/Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights