POSITIVE ELECTRODE MATERIAL, PREPARATION METHOD OF SAME, POSITIVE ELECTRODE PLATE, SECONDARY BATTERY, AND ELECTRICAL DEVICE
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/5/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In response to communication filed on 1/5/2026:
Claims 1 and 5 have been amended; claims 2, 4, and 6 have been canceled. No new matter has been entered.
Previous specification objections have been withdrawn.
Previous rejections under 35 USC 112(a) have been withdrawn.
Previous rejections under 35 USC 102(a)(1)/103 have been withdrawn due to amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/5/2026 have been fully considered but are moot based on grounds of new rejection necessitated by amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 3, 5, 7-12, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Han et al. (US 2022/0059832 A1) and further in view of Zeng et al. (US 2019/0245199 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 11, and 20, Han et al. teach positive electrode material (Abstract discloses a positive electrode material being used in a lithium secondary battery.), wherein the positive electrode material comprises a ternary positive electrode substrate and optionally a coating layer, the coating layer coats a surface of the ternary positive electrode substrate (Paragraph 0058 discloses the positive electrode material may further include a coating layer and is therefore optional.), the ternary positive electrode substrate comprises Li, Ni, Al, and an M element, and the M element comprises a combination of one or more of Mn, Co, Ti, Zr, W, Nb, Mo, Si, Mg, B, Cr, or Ta (Abstract discloses the positive electrode material includes large-diameter and small-diameter particles comprised of lithium transition metal oxide comprising Ni, Al, and Co.), a low-peak particle diameter is a first peak diameter (Paragraph 0032 discloses the small-diameter particles comprise the formula Lix[NiyCozAlwM’v]O2. Further, paragraph 0045 discloses the particle diameter range can be 2-8 µm.), a high-peak particle diameter is a second peak diameter (Paragraph 0048 discloses the large-diameter particles comprise the formula Lia[NibCocM2dM3e]O2. Paragraph 0049 discloses wherein M2=Al. Further, paragraph 0047 discloses the particle diameter range can be 10-20 µm.), an average mass percent of Al in positive electrode material particles with a particle size smaller than the first peak diameter is m1, and an average mass percent of Al in positive electrode material particles with a particle size larger than the second peak diameter is m2, satisfying: ml< m2, wherein the particles with a particle size that lies at the first peak diameter are defined as a small-grained particles of the positive electrode material, the particles with a particle size that lies at the second peak diameter are defined as a large-grained particles of the positive electrode material, and the average mass percent of Al in the small-grained particles of the positive electrode material is less than the average mass percent of Al in the large-grained particles of the positive electrode material, wherein an average molar fraction of Al in particles with a particle size matching a Dv50 point of the bimodal distribution curve in the positive electrode material is 0.1 to 0.12; and/or an average molar fraction of the Al in particles with a particle size matching a Dv90 point of the bimodal distribution in the positive electrode material is 0.12 to 0.15.(Paragraph 0032 discloses the molar amount of Al in the small-diameter particle can be present in the range of 0<w≤0.1. Paragraph 0048 discloses the molar amount of Al in the large-diameter particle can be present in the range of 0<d<0.2. Therefore, the maximum amount of Al in the small-diameter particle is 0.1 at most whereas the maximum amount of Al in the large-diameter particle around 0.2. Therefore, m1 can be less than m2.). Further, Han discloses the positive electrode material is a bimodal distribution (Abstract).
However, Han et al. do not teach wherein the bimodal curve is fitted in a peak separation manner, so as to obtain a small-particle fitted peak and a large-particle fitted peak, a volume particle size distribution span of the large-particle fitted peak satisfies: 0.2 ≤ (Dv90 – Dv10)/Dv50 ≤ 1, and further optionally satisfies: 0.8 ≤ (Dv90 – Dv10)/Dv50 ≤ 1; and/or, a volume particle size distribution span of the small- particle fitted peak satisfies: 1.4 ≤ (Dv90 – Dv10)/Dv50 ≤ 2, and further optionally satisfies: 1.4 ≤ (Dv90 – Dv10)/Dv50 ≤ 1.7; or wherein a volume particle size distribution of the first positive electrode material matches characteristics of the small-particle fitted peak; and a volume particle size distribution of the second positive electrode material matches characteristics of the large-particle fitted peak.
Zeng et al. disclose a positive active material comprising a first particle and a second particle, both comprising lithium metal oxides of LieCogM1-gO2-i and LifCohM1-hO2-j respectively, wherein the element M is at least two selected from a group consisting of Ni, Mn, Al, Mg, Ti, La, Y and Zr, the element N is at least one selected from a group consisting of Ni, Mn, Al, Mg, Ti, La, Y and Zr, and 0.8≤e≤1.2, 0<g<1, −0.1≤i≤0.2, 0.8≤f≤1.2, 0<h<1, −0.1≤j≤0.2 (Abstract). Further, Example 1 discloses synthesis of a positive electrode active material wherein the first and second particle both comprise aluminum (Paragraphs 0071-0073). The volume particle size distribution span of the small- particle fitted peak satisfies: 1.4 ≤ (Dv90 – Dv10)/Dv50 ≤ 2, and further optionally satisfies: 1.4 ≤ (Dv90 – Dv10)/Dv50 ≤ 1.7 (Paragraph 0079 discloses the Dv10 is 5.70 µm, Dv50 is 17.60 µm, and Dv90 is 32.90 µm. Therefore, (Dv90 – Dv10)/Dv50=(32.9-5.7)/17.6=1.55.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Han with Zeng in order to improve discharge capacity and thermal stability.
Regarding claim 5, Han and Zeng et al. teach the positive electrode material according to claim 1. Further, Han et al. teach wherein a mass percent of Al in the small-grained particles per unit volume of the positive electrode material is defined as S1, a mass percent of Al in the large-grained particles per unit volume of the positive electrode material is defined as S2, the first peak diameter is defined as D1, and the second peak diameter is defined as D2, satisfying: (D1)3 x S1 < (D2)3 x S2 (Paragraph 0032 discloses the molar amount of Al in the small-diameter particle can be present in the range of 0<w≤0.1. Paragraph 0048 discloses the molar amount of Al in the large-diameter particle can be present in the range of 0<d<0.2. Therefore, the maximum amount of Al in the small-diameter particle is 0.1 at most whereas the maximum amount of Al in the large-diameter particle around 0.2. Therefore, S1 can be less than S2. Further, paragraphs 0045 and 0047 disclose the small-diameter particles are in a range of 2-8 µm (D1) and the large-diameter particles are in a range of 10-20 µm (D2). With this information from Han, it is clear that (D1)3 x S1 < (D2)3 x S2.), and/or, a bimodal peak position difference satisfies D2-D1>D1 x (S1/S2)1/3.
Regarding claim 8, Han and Zeng et al. teach the positive electrode material according to claim 7. Further, Han et al. teach wherein yl/z1= 0.01 to 1, optionally 0.2 to 0.75; and y2/z2 = 0.5 to 10, optionally 1 to 5. (Paragraph 0032 discloses the small-diameter particles comprise the formula Lix[NiyCozAlwM’v]O2 wherein 0<w≤0.1 (“y1”) and 0≤v<0.2(“z1) which would yield a w/v ~0 to 2. Paragraph 0048 discloses the large-diameter particles comprise the formula Lia[NibCocM2dM3e]O2. Paragraph 0049 discloses wherein M2=Al. Paragraph 0054 discloses wherein 0.01≤d≤0.15 (“y2”), and paragraph 0055 discloses 0≤e≤0.15 (“z2”) which would yield a d/e ~0 to 15.).
Regarding claim 10, Han and Zeng et al. teach the positive electrode material according to claim 1. Further, Han et al. teach wherein, a mass ratio of the first positive electrode material to the second positive electrode material is 1: 1 to 1: 10, and optionally 1: 2 to 1: 5 (Examples 1-3 discloses the small-diameter and the large-diameter particles are mixed at a weight ratio of 2:8, or 1:4.).
Regarding claim 12, Han and Zeng et al. teach the positive electrode material according to claim 1. However, they do not teach wherein a powder compaction density of the positive electrode material under a 5-ton pressure is greater than or equal to 3.5 g/cm3.
MPEP 2112.01 Composition, Product, and Apparatus Claims
II. COMPOSITION CLAIMS — IF THE COMPOSITION IS PHYSICALLY THE SAME, IT MUST HAVE THE SAME PROPERTIES
"Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.
Regarding claim 19, Han and Zeng et al. disclose a secondary battery comprising a positive electrode plate (Han: Paragraphs 0063-0068), a negative electrode plate (Han: Paragraphs 0076-0078), a separator (Han: Paragraph 0080), and an electrolyte solution (Han: Paragraphs 0081-0082), wherein the positive electrode plate comprises a current collector and a positive electrode film layer, wherein the positive electrode film layer comprises a positive active material (Han: Paragraphs 0063-0068), and the positive active material is the positive electrode material according to claim 1 (Han: Paragraphs 0032; 0048).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (US 2022/0059832 A1) and Zeng et al. (US 2019/0245199 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li et al. (CN 110858643 A).
Regarding claim 13, Han and Zeng et al. teach the positive electrode material according to claim 1. However, they do not teach wherein the preparation method comprises:
preparing a first ternary material precursor and a second ternary material precursor each containing an Al element and an M element, wherein an aluminum content in the first ternary material precursor is less than an aluminum content in the second ternary material precursor, and a particle size of the first ternary material precursor is smaller than a particle size of the second ternary material precursor;
mixing the first ternary material precursor, the second ternary material precursor, and a lithium salt at a specified ratio to form a precursor mixture, and sintering the precursor mixture for a first time in an oxygen-containing atmosphere to obtain a substrate mixture of a first ternary positive electrode substrate and a second ternary positive electrode substrate; and
optionally, mixing the substrate mixture with a coating layer feedstock, and then sintering the mixture for a second time in an oxygen-containing atmosphere to obtain the positive electrode material.
Li et al. teach a fast ion conductor modified lithium-ion battery positive electrode material, the lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide as substrate, the surface of the base body is covered with NASICON type fast ion conductor material, the median particle diameter of the substrate is 7 to 12μm, the base material is nickel cobalt lithium manganate size of different particle diameter by ball milling (Abstract). The method comprises preparing a first ternary material precursor and a second ternary material precursor each containing an Al element and an M element, wherein an aluminum content in the first ternary material precursor is less than an aluminum content in the second ternary material precursor, and a particle size of the first ternary material precursor is smaller than a particle size of the second ternary material precursor (Example 2 discloses ball milling Li1.01 Ni0.5 Co0.2 Mn0.2 Mg0.05 Al0.05 O2 having a median particle size of 14 µm, the second ternary material precursor, and a Li1.01 Ni0.6 Co0.1 Mn0.25 Al0.05 O2 median particle size of 6 μm, a first ternary material precursor, in a mass ratio of 2: 1. Because of this mass ratio, the second ternary material precursor will have a higher Al content than the first ternary material precursor.);
mixing the first ternary material precursor, the second ternary material precursor, and a lithium salt at a specified ratio to form a precursor mixture (Example 2; paragraphs 0063-0064), and sintering the precursor mixture for a first time in an oxygen-containing atmosphere to obtain a substrate mixture of a first ternary positive electrode substrate and a second ternary positive electrode substrate (Paragraph 0071 discloses heat treating in air at 800°C for 12 hours.); and
optionally, mixing the substrate mixture with a coating layer feedstock, and then sintering the mixture for a second time in an oxygen-containing atmosphere to obtain the positive electrode material.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Han with Li in order to improve energy density and stabilize discharge voltage.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-18 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the subject matter of claims 14-18 is not disclosed in the prior art of record. Further, modifying the prior art with the subject matter of these claims would teach away from their inventions and not present a prima facie case of obviousness.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL S GATEWOOD whose telephone number is (571)270-7958. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ula Tavares-Crockett can be reached at 571-272-1481. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Daniel S. Gatewood, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1729
/DANIEL S GATEWOOD, Ph. D/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729 January 28th, 2026