DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Amendment
2. The amendment filed on 08/12/2026 has been entered into this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-3 and 5-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2016076294A by Toda et al. (hereinafter Toda) in view of US Patent Pub. No. 2018/0316009 A1 by Park et al. (hereinafter Park)
Regarding Claim 1, Toda teaches a method of evaluating quality of a positive electrode active material (Claim 1, Page 9: an evaluation and selection method of a positive electrode active material, Claim 8, page 10: The method for evaluating and selecting a positive electrode active material for a lithium ion secondary battery according to claim 8, wherein at least the characteristic (A) is determined and selected as a positive electrode active material for a lithium ion secondary battery), comprising:
determining the positive electrode active material as a working product when a value of a peak corresponding to LiNiO2 in a spectrum of a surface of the positive electrode active material satisfies pre-established positive electrode active material quality evaluation criteria (Abstract, Page 2: The peak intensity in the characteristic (A) needs to be larger than 1.52, more preferably 1.55 or more, further preferably 1.57 or more, and particularly preferably 1.6 or more, Page 3);
determining the positive electrode active material as a defective product when the value does not satisfy the pre-established positive electrode active material quality evaluation criteria Page 2: The peak intensity in the characteristic (A) needs to be larger than 1.52, more preferably 1.55 or more, further preferably 1.57 or more, and particularly preferably 1.6 or more, Page 3, thus teaches the limitation), but does not explicitly teach a Raman shift value of a peak corresponding to an A1g vibration mode of LiNiO2 in a Raman spectrum;
wherein the pre-established positive electrode active material quality evaluation criteria include that the Raman shift value of the peak corresponding to the A l g vibration mode of LiNiO₂ is 560 cm⁻¹ or more.
However, Park teaches a Raman shift value of a peak corresponding to an A1g vibration mode (Par. [0056]: maximum peak value, e.g., intensity, in a Raman spectrum of the composite cathode active material may be at a wavenumber of about 530 inverse centimeters (cm.sup.−1) or greater, about 532 cm.sup.−1 or greater, about 533 cm.sup.−1 or greater, about 534 cm.sup.−1 or greater, or about 536 cm.sup.−1 or greater. A maximum peak value in a Raman spectrum of the core including the first lithium transition metal oxide may be at about 510 cm.sup.1. However, due to the introduction of the shell having a spinel crystal structure onto the core, a maximum peak shift to about 530 cm.sup.−1 or greater may occur in the Raman spectrum of the composite cathode active material thus teaches a Raman shift value of a peak corresponding to an A1g vibration mode) of LiNiO2 in a Raman spectrum (Fig. 7, Par. [0029, 0056. 0156])
wherein the pre-established positive electrode active material quality evaluation criteria include that the Raman shift value of the peak corresponding to the A l g vibration mode of LiNiO₂ is 560 cm⁻¹ or more (Par. [0056]: maximum peak value, e.g., intensity, in a Raman spectrum of the composite cathode active material may be at a wavenumber of about 530 inverse centimeters (cm.sup.−1) or greater, about 532 cm.sup.−1 or greater, about 533 cm.sup.−1 or greater, about 534 cm.sup.−1 or greater, or about 536 cm.sup.−1 or greater. A maximum peak value in a Raman spectrum of the core including the first lithium transition metal oxide may be at about 510 cm.sup.1. However, due to the introduction of the shell having a spinel crystal structure onto the core, a maximum peak shift to about 530 cm.sup.−1 or greater may occur in the Raman spectrum of the composite cathode active material thus teaches the Raman shift value of the peak corresponding to the A1g vibration mode of LiNiO₂ is 560 cm⁻¹ or more. Also see Par. [0156]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Toda by Park as taught above such that a Raman shift value of a peak corresponding to an A1g vibration mode of LiNiO2 in a Raman spectrum and determining the positive electrode active material as a defective product when the Raman shift value does not satisfy the pre-established positive electrode active material quality evaluation criteria, wherein the pre-established positive electrode active material quality evaluation criteria include that the Raman shift value of the peak corresponding to the A l g vibration mode of LiNiO₂ is 560 cm⁻¹ or more is accomplished in order to improve cycle characteristics and thermal stability (Park, Par. [0004, 0052, 0177]).
Regarding Claim 2, Toda as modified by Park teaches preparing the positive electrode active material in a form of a single particle which includes a lithium transition metal oxide in a form of a single particle and a coating portion containing cobalt which is formed on the lithium transition metal oxide in the form of the single particle (Park, Par. [0058]), before the determining the positive electrode active material as the working product or the defective product (Park, Par. [0002, 0006-0009, 0017, 0135, 0177, thus teaches the imitation, Claim 24).
Regarding Claim 3, Toda as modified by Park teaches the positive electrode active material in the form of the single particle is prepared by heat-treating a mixture in which the lithium transition metal oxide in the form of the single particle and a cobalt raw material are mixed (Park, Par. [0015, 058, 0107, 0117, 0119, 0149]).
Regarding Claim 5, Toda as modified by Park teaches determining the positive electrode active material as the working product when a ratio of an intensity of a peak ranging from 550 cm-1 to 620 cm corresponding to an A1g vibration mode of LiCoO2 to an intensity of a peak ranging from 500 cm-1 to 600 cm corresponding to an A1g vibration mode of LiNiO2 in the Raman spectrum of the surface of the positive electrode active material is 0.3 or less (Park, Par. [0057]); and
determining the positive electrode active material as the defective product when the ratio is greater than 0.3 (Park, Par. [0057]: peak intensity ratio may be about 2 or less, about 1.9 or less, about 1.8 or less, about 1.7 or less, or about 1.6 or less. Due to the reduced residual surface lithium content, a side reaction between the composite cathode active material and an electrolyte may be inhibited. Another word, if ratio is greater, then may not be inhibited thus teaches defective).
Regarding Claim 6, Toda as modified by Park teaches preparing the positive electrode active material in a form of a single particle which includes a lithium transition metal oxide in a form of a single particle (See Claim 2 rejection above); and
a coating portion containing cobalt which is formed on the lithium transition metal oxide in the form of the single particle (See Claim 2 rejection above);
evaluating the quality of the positive electrode active material by (See Claim 1 rejection above); and
preparing the positive electrode by using the positive electrode active material determined as the working product (Park, Par. [0058]).
Regarding Claim 7, Toda as modified by Park teaches the positive electrode active material in the form of the single particle is prepared by heat-treating a mixture in which the lithium transition metal oxide in the form of the single particle and a cobalt raw material are mixed (See Claim 3 rejection above).
Regarding Claim 8, Toda as modified by Park teaches the positive electrode active material in the form of the single particle is prepared by heat-treating a mixture, in which the lithium transition metal oxide in the form of the single particle and a cobalt raw material are mixed, at a temperature ranging from greater than 720°C to less than 780°C (Park, Par. [0106-0107]).
Regarding Claim 9, Toda as modified by Park teaches a positive electrode active material in a form of a single particle (See Claim 2 rejection above), comprising:
a lithium transition metal oxide in a form of a single particle (See Claim 2 rejection above); and
a coating portion containing cobalt which is formed on the lithium transition metal oxide in the form of the single particle (See Claim 2 rejection above),
wherein a Raman shift value of a peak corresponding to an A1g vibration mode of LiNiO2 in a Raman spectrum of a surface of the positive electrode active material is 560 cm-1 or more (See Claim 1 rejection above).
Regarding Claim 10, Toda as modified by Park teaches the positive electrode active material in the form of the single particle further comprising LiCoO2 in a form of an island which is discontinuously formed (Park, Par. [0105]) on the surface of the positive electrode active material (Park, Par. [0058]).
Regarding Claim 11, Toda as modified by Park teaches the positive electrode active material in the form of the single particle (See Claim 9 rejection above), wherein a ratio of an intensity of a peak ranging from 550 cm-1 to 620 cm corresponding to an A1g vibration mode of LiCoO2 to an intensity of a peak ranging from 500 cm-1 to 600 cm corresponding to the A1g vibration mode of LiNiO2 in the Raman spectrum of the surface of the positive electrode active material is 0.3 or less (See Claim 5 rejection above).
Regarding Claim 12, Toda as modified by Park teaches the positive electrode active material in the form of the single particle (See Claim 9 rejection above), wherein the positive electrode active material in the form of the single particle has an average particle diameter (Dso) ranging from 0.1 mm to 10 mm (Park, Par. [0108]).
Regarding Claim 13, Toda as modified by Park teaches the positive electrode active material in the form of the single particle (See Claim 9 rejection above), wherein the positive electrode active material in the form of the single particle has a form in which primary particles, which are aggregated (Park, Par. [0139]), but does not explicitly teach the single particle has a form in which 50 or less primary particles, which are aggregated, wherein each of the primary particles composed of 10 or less single crystal grains.
However, it is considered obvious to try all known solutions when there is a recognized need in the art (aggregated 50 or less primary particles, wherein each of the primary particles composed of 10 or less single crystal grains), there had been a finite number of identified, predictable solutions to the recognized need (aggregated, non-aggregated), and when one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143, E. Furthermore, such an arrangement would imply to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the single particle has a form in which 50 or less primary particles, which are aggregated, wherein each of the primary particles composed of 10 or less single crystal grains in order to balance lithium-ion diffusion speed with mechanical stability during battery cycling. Primary particles composed of 10 or less single crystal grains shorten the path lithium ions must travel within the solid lattice. Fewer grain boundaries mean fewer obstacles for ion transport, improving the battery's power density.
Regarding Claim 14, Toda teaches the positive electrode active material in the form of the single particle (See Claim 9 rejection above), wherein the lithium transition metal oxide in the form of the single particle is a lithium composite transition metal oxide containing nickel (Ni), cobalt (Co), and manganese (Mn) (Page 6: the composition ratios of lithium, nickel, cobalt, manganese).
Regarding Claim 15, Toda as modified by Park teaches the positive electrode active material in the form of the single particle of (See Claim 9 rejection above), wherein the lithium transition metal oxide in the form of the single particle has a composition represented by Formula 1:
[Formula 1]
LiaNibCocMndM1e02 (Park, Claim 21),
Wherein,
M1 is at least one of aluminum (Al), zirconium (Zr), boron (B), tungsten (W), molybdenum (Mo), chromium (Cr), niobium (Nb), magnesium (Mg), hafnium (Hf), tantalum (Ta), lanthanum (La), titanium (Ti), strontium (Sr), barium (Ba), cerium (Ce), tin (Sn), yttrium (Y), zinc (Zn), fluorine (F), phosphorus (P), or sulfur (S), and
1,0.85b<1.0, 0<c<0.2, 0<d<0.2,0<e<0.1, and b+c+d+e=1 (Park, Claim 21).
Regarding Claim 16, Toda as modified by Park teaches the positive electrode active material in the form of the single particle (See Claim 9 rejection above), wherein the coating portion is a region ranging from 5 nm to 100 nm from the surface of the positive electrode active material in a central direction (Park, Par. [0079, 0141]).
Regarding Claim 17, Toda as modified by Park teaches the Raman shift value of the peak corresponding to the A1g vibration mode of LiNiO2 ranges from 560 cm-1 to 590 cm-1 (Park. Fig. 7, Par. [0029, 0056. 0156]).
Regarding Claim 18, Toda as modified by Park teaches the Raman shift value of the peak corresponding to the A1g vibration mode of LiNiO2 ranges from 560 cm-1 to 590 cm-1 (Park. Fig. 7, Par. [0029, 0056. 0156]).
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's argument, filed on 08/12/2026, with respect to claims 1, 8 and 9 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
5.1 The Applicant argues that Toda does not teach that the positive electrode active material is in the form of a single particle, that the positive electrode active material includes a coating portion containing cobalt, and that the Raman shift value of the peak corresponding to the A1g vibration mode of LiNiO₂ in a Raman spectrum of a surface of the positive electrode active material is 560 cm⁻¹ or more. Park does not remedy these deficiencies of Toda as alleged in the Action. Park does not teach Raman shift value as claimed (Argument, Page 8) (Claims 1, 9).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Park teaches in Par. [0056]: maximum peak value, e.g., intensity, in a Raman spectrum of the composite cathode active material may be at a wavenumber of about 530 inverse centimeters (cm.sup.−1) or greater, about 532 cm.sup.−1 or greater, about 533 cm.sup.−1 or greater, about 534 cm.sup.−1 or greater, or about 536 cm.sup.−1 or greater. A maximum peak value in a Raman spectrum of the core including the first lithium transition metal oxide may be at about 510 cm.sup.1. However, due to the introduction of the shell having a spinel crystal structure onto the core, a maximum peak shift to about 530 cm.sup.−1 or greater may occur in the Raman spectrum of the composite cathode active material thus teaches the Raman shift value of the peak corresponding to the A1g vibration mode of LiNiO₂ is 560 cm⁻¹ or more. Also see Par. [0156]). Park never precludes using 560 cm⁻¹ or more. Always suggested 536 cm.sup.−1 or greater. Also see Claims 1, 9 rejections.
Note: However, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the range disclosed in order to ensure a sufficient resolution when detecting Raman, and since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. (MPEP 2144.05).
5.2 The Applicant’s argument regarding thermal treatment temperature range greater than 7200 and less than 7800 is not persuasive (Argument, Page 8) (Claim 8).
Park clearly teaches in Par. [0106]: The thermal treatment temperature may be, for example, about 650° C. to about 800° C., which is within the range greater than 7200 and less than 7800.
Note: However, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the range disclosed in order to ensure a sufficient resolution when detecting Raman, and since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. (MPEP 2144.05).
5.3 The references are being used from the same field of endeavor and one having an ordinary skill in the art would look into those cited references because there is a reasonable amount of success for combining the references and would be motivated to combine those cited references to arrive at the claimed invention for the advantage of ensuring a sufficient resolution when detecting Raman.
5.4 Since Office Action has shown that the combination of the cited references teaches or suggests each and every element of the amended claims, therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 JAMIL AHMED whose telephone number is (571) 272-1950. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Kara Geisel can be reached on 571-272-2416. 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.
/JAMIL AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights