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 .
Summary
This is the initial Office Action based on the 18/723,681 application filed on 08/05/2024.
Claims 1-21 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-13, 16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Leng et al. (US 2023/0223523).
Addressing claims 1-2, Leng discloses a positive active material layer for lithium secondary battery, comprising:
a first metal oxide (second matrix of the second lithium-nickel transition metal oxide), which includes nickel, cobalt and manganese (formula II), is in single particle form [0020]; and
a second metal oxide (first matrix of the first lithium-nickel transition metal oxide) that contains nickel, cobalt and manganese (formula I) and is in the form of a secondary particle [0009] containing a plurality of primary particles [0062] and has an average particle diameter D50 larger than that of the first metal oxide [0021];
wherein, a nickel content of the second metal oxide is 0.8 mol or more, based on 1 mole of the total nickel, cobalt and manganese in the second metal oxide (0.5 ≤ x1 ≤ 0.95 disclosed in paragraph [0055] that includes values that is 0.8 mol or more as claimed; paragraph [071] discloses x1 is between 0.8 and 0.85 mole that fall within the claimed range), and
a nickel content of the first metal oxide is 0.03 mole to 0.17 mole more than the nickel content of the second metal oxide (paragraph [0071] discloses x2 is between 0.85 and 0.9 mole and absolute value of x1-x2 is ≤ 0.1 that satisfies the claimed limitation; furthermore, paragraph [0070] discloses the first matrix, i.e. the claimed second metal oxide, is made of LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 and the second matrix, i.e. the claimed first metal oxide, is made of LiNi0.85Co0.05Mn0.1O2 that also satisfies the claimed relationship);
wherein, a density of the electrode is more than 3.5 g/cc [0016, 0059].
Addressing claims 4-8, paragraph [0069] discloses Al, Zr and Ti as additional element, that correspond to the claimed first doping element with b2 representing the mole of Al, Zr and/or Ti in the first metal oxide that encompasses the claimed doping amount range.
Addressing claims 9-13, paragraph [0054] discloses Al, Zr and Ti as additional element for the first metal oxide, i.e. the claimed second metal oxide, with b1 representing the mole of Al, Zr and/or Ti that encompasses the claimed doping amount range.
Addressing claims 16 and 19, paragraph [0080] discloses the size of the crystal particles of the second metal oxide, i.e. the claimed first metal oxide, with values that fall within the claimed ranges.
Addressing claim 20, paragraph [0080] discloses the size of the average particle diameter d50 of the second metal oxide particle with values that fall within the claimed range.
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leng et al. (US 2023/0223523) in view of Kim et al. (US 2023/0155127).
Addressing claim 3, Leng is silent regarding the specific surface area of the positive active material in the claimed range.
Kim discloses in paragraph [0044] discloses a positive active material comprising the same metal oxide material as that of Leng; wherein, the BET of the positive active material is between 0.3 m2/g and 0.7m2/g [0044].
At the time of he effective filing date of the invention, one with ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the positive active material of Leng by perform routine experiment with the BET of the positive active material in the range disclosed by Kim in order to optimize the prevention of side reaction between the positive electrode active material and the electrolyte (Kim, [0045]). Therefore, one would have arrived at the claimed BET of the positive active material when perform routine experiment with the BET of the positive active material in the range disclosed by Kim in order to optimize the prevention of side reaction between the positive electrode active material and the electrolyte.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leng et al. (US 2023/0223523).
Addressing claim 14, Leng is silent regarding the content ratio of the first metal oxide, i.e. the claimed second metal oxide, and the second metal oxide, i.e. the claimed first metal oxide, is in the claimed ratio range.
Leng discloses in paragraph [0081] the mass percentages of the first metal oxide, i.e. the claimed second metal oxide, and the second metal oxide, i.e. the claimed first metal oxide, wherein the mass of the second metal oxide is less than that of the first metal oxide, which correlates to the claimed ratio range. At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, one with ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed content ratio between the first metal oxide and the second metal oxide when perform routine experimentation with the mass percentages of the second metal oxide and the first metal oxide of Leng, respectively, in order to optimize the OI value of the positive electrode plate to a specific extent, increase the press density and mechanical strength of the electrode plate (Leng, [0081]).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leng et al. (US 2023/0223523) in view of Hosono et al. (WO2020/059471).
Addressing claim 15, Leng is silent regarding the claimed particle strength values.
Hosono discloses a cathode active material comprising single particles and/or secondary particles made of lithium, nickel, cobalt and manganese similarly to that of Leng; wherein, the particle strength of the single metal oxide particle is between 230 MPa, 250 MPa or 310 MPa [0030].
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, one with ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the cathode active material of Leng by configuring the single metal oxide to have the particle strength disclosed by Hosono in order to improve cycle characteristics in room temperature and high temperature environments (Hosono, [0030]).
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leng et al. (US 2023/0223523) in view of Shin et al. (US 2020/0203717).
Addressing claims 17-18, Leng is silent regarding the limitations of current claims.
Shin discloses a positive electrode for lithium secondary battery comprising cathode active material comprise lithium, nickel, cobalt and manganese similarly to that of Shin; wherein, the cathode active material comprises I(003)/I(104) that is between 1.6 and 1.8 [0111] that falls within the claimed range and R-factor (Abstract).
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, one with ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed R-factor and I(003)/I(104) ratio ranges when modify the cathode active material of Leng by perform routine experimentation with the R-factor and I(003)/I(104) ratio in the ranges disclosed by Shin in order to optimize the cycle characteristics and initial capacity (Shin, [0111-0113]).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leng et al. (US 2023/0223523) in view of Kim et al. (US 2025/0015281).
Addressing claim 21, Leng discloses a positive electrode for lithium secondary battery 5, comprising:
a current collector [0029]; and
a positive active material layer positioned on at least one side of the current collector [0029] and containing the positive active material of claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above);
wherein, a density of the electrode is 3.3 g/cm3 to 3.5 g/ cm3 [0016].
Leng is silent regarding the density is more than 3.5 g/cc.
Kim discloses a cathode active material similarly to that of Leng; wherein, the cathode active material layer has a density from 3.0 g/cc to 4.0 g/cc or preferably 3.0 g/cc to 3.6 g/cc [0052].
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, one with ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the active material layer of Leng by perform routine experimentation with the density of the cathode in the density range disclosed by Kim in order to optimize energy density of the secondary battery (Kim [0052]). Therefore, one would have arrived at the density that falls within the claimed range when perform routine experimentation with the density of the cathode in the density range disclosed by Kim in order to optimize energy density of the secondary battery (Kim [0052]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BACH T DINH whose telephone number is (571)270-5118. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday 8:00 - 4:30 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, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at (571)-272-1307. 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.
/BACH T DINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726 10/05/2026
