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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 12 Mar 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US Patent No. 12080877 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12 Mar 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regard to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC §103, Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach or disclose the newly-added limitation “wherein the second positive electrode active material has a crystallite size of 400 nm or less.”
However, such arguments are moot based on the new grounds of rejection as this feature is taught by Hiratsuka et al. (US 2015/0243982), as set forth in detail below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of claims 1-15 under 35 USC §112(b) is withdrawn in view of the amended claims.
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) 1-3, 5-6, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konishi et al. (US 2010/0081055) in view of Hiratsuka et al. (US 2015/0243982 newly cited).
As to claim 1, Konishi et al. discloses a positive electrode material for a lithium secondary battery, comprising:
a first positive electrode active material (see e.g. first cathode active material, [0020]) and a second positive electrode active material (see e.g. second cathode active material, [0020]),
wherein the first positive electrode active material and the second positive electrode active material are lithium composite transition metal oxides containing transition metals comprising nickel (Ni), cobalt (Co) and manganese (Mn) (see e.g. [0033], both first and second cathode active materials have the formula LixNiaMnbCocO2 and thereby are lithium composite transition metal oxides),
an average particle size (D50) of the first positive electrode active material is larger than an average particle size of the second positive electrode active material (see e.g. [0047], the average secondary particle size for the first cathode active material is 1.5 times or more the average secondary particle size for the second cathode active material),
the average particle size (D50) of the first positive electrode active material is from 7 mm to 20 mm (see e.g. [0041], the average secondary particle size for the first cathode active material is 5-30 mm, which overlaps and thereby renders obvious the claimed range of 7-20 mm),
the average particle size (D50) of the second positive electrode active material is from 1 mm to 7 mm (see e.g. [0046], the average secondary particle size for the second cathode active material is 2-10 mm, which overlaps and thereby renders obvious the claimed range of 1-7 mm).
Konishi et al. is silent as to the crystallite size of the second positive electrode active material, and does not disclose that the second positive electrode active material has a crystallite size of 400 nm or less.
Hiratsuka et al., also working on the problem of positive active materials for lithium batteries, teaches a lithium transition metal oxide positive electrode active material of similar composition and crystal structure, further having a crystallite size of 100 nm to 300 nm, which lies within the claimed range of 400 nm or less (see e.g. Hiratsuka et al.: [0006]-[0008]). Hiratsuka et al. teaches that crystallite sizes in this range yield positive electrode active materials having a high capacity, high energy density, and excellent cycle characteristics (see e.g. Hiratsuka et al. [0088]-[0089]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the instantly-claimed invention to modify positive electrode active material of Konishi et al. by making the second positive electrode active material have a crystallite size of 400 nm or less as taught by Hiratsuka et al. Said artisan would have been motivated to make such a modification because Hiratsuka et al. teaches that lithium transition metal oxides with such a crystallite size yield high capacity, high energy density, and excellent cycle characteristics.
As to claim 2, Konishi et al. in view of Hiratsuka et al. teaches the positive electrode material according to claim 1, wherein the second positive electrode active material has a crystallite size of 180 nm or more (see e.g. Hiratsuka et al.: [0088]-[0089], teaching a crystallite size of 100 nm to 300 nm, which overlaps and thereby renders obvious the claimed range of 180 nm or more).
As to claim 3, Konishi et al. in view of Hiratsuka et al. teaches the positive electrode material according to claim 1, wherein the second positive electrode active material is a secondary particle formed by agglomerating primary particles (see e.g. the second cathode active material is composed of primary particles, Konishi et al. [0046] and Fig. 1), and the average particle size (D50) of the primary particles is 0.3 mm or more (see e.g. primary particle size of the second cathode active material is 0.05-0.5 mm, which overlaps and thereby renders obvious the claimed range of 0.3 mm or more. Konishi et al. [0046]).
As to claim 5, Konishi et al. in view of Hiratsuka et al. teaches the positive electrode material according to claim 1, wherein the average particle size (D50) of the first positive electrode active material is from 8 mm to 17 mm (see e.g. Konishi et al.: [0041], the average secondary particle size for the first cathode active material is 5-30 mm, which overlaps and thereby renders obvious the claimed range of 8-17 mm),
As to claim 6, Konishi et al. in view of Hiratsuka et al. teaches the positive electrode material according to claim 1, wherein the first positive electrode active material is represented by Formula 1, as shown below:
The instantly-claimed first positive active material has the formula
Li1+p1[Ni1-(x1+y1+z1)Cox1Mny1Maz1](1-p1)O2
Where 0 < p1 ≤ 0.2, 0 < x1 ≤ 0.5, 0 < y1 ≤ 0.5, 0 ≤ z1 ≤0.1. If p1 = 0.2 and z1 = 0 (these parameters lie within the instantly-claimed ranges), the formula becomes
Li1.2[Ni1-(x1+y1)Cox1Mny1](0.8)O2, or
Li1.2Ni0.8(1-(x1+y1))Co0.8x1Mn0.8y1O2
Further, if x1 = 0.125 and y1 = 0.125 (which both lie within the instantly-claimed ranges, note that 0 < x1+y1+z1 = 0.125+0.125+0 = 0.25 ≤ 0.7), the formula becomes
Li1.2Ni0.6Co0.1Mn0.1O2
Konishi et al. discloses a first positive active material having the formula Lix1Nia1Mnb1Coc1O2, where 0.2 ≤ x1 ≤ 1.2, 0.6 ≤ a1, 0.05 ≤ b1 ≤ 0.3, 0.05 ≤ c1 ≤ 0.3 ([0019]). When x1 = 1.2, a1 = 0.6, b1 = 0.1, and c1 = 0.1 (which lie within the scope of Konishi et al.’s disclosure). This results in a compound having the formula Li1.2N0.6Mn0.125Co0.125O2, or Li1.2N0.6Co0.125Mn0.125O2. This formula is identical to the formula derived from the instant claim above. That is to say, Konishi et al. discloses a first positive active material that anticipates the instantly-claimed first positive active material.
As to claim 12, Konishi et al. in view of Hiratsuka et al. teaches positive electrode material according to claim 1, wherein a ratio of the average particle sizes (D50) of the first positive electrode active material and the second positive electrode active material may be 1.5:1 to 4:1 (see e.g. the d50 of the first positive electrode active material is 5 mm to 30 mm and the d50 of the second positive active material is 2 mm to 10 mm, Konishi et al.: [0041]-[0046]. The ratio of the average particle sizes of Konishi et al. in view of Hiratsuka et al.’s first and second positive electrode active materials is therefore 0.5:1to 15:1 --i.e., 5/10:1 to 30/2:1--, which overlaps and thereby renders obvious the claimed range of 1.5:1 to 4:1).
As to claim 13, Konishi et al. in view of Hiratsuka et al. teaches positive electrode material according to claim 1, wherein the first positive electrode active material and the second positive electrode active material are mixed in a weight ratio of 60:40 to 85:15 (see e.g. Konishi et al. in view of Hiratsuka et al. discloses a first cathode active material that reads on the first positive electrode active material and a second cathode active material that reads on the second positive electrode active material wherein the first positive electrode active material and second positive electrode active material are mixed in a weight ratio of 70:30, which lies within and thereby anticipates the claimed range of 60:40 to 85:15, Konishi et al.: [0065]).
As to claim 14, Konishi et al. in view of Hiratsuka et al. teaches a positive electrode (see e.g. cathode, Konishi et al.: [0062]) for a lithium secondary battery, comprising the positive electrode material for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1 (see e.g. Konishi et al. in view of Hiratsuka et al.’s positive electrode material reads on the claimed positive electrode material as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above. Konishi et al. in view of Hiratsuka et al.’s positive electrode material is applied to a foil current collector to produce a cathode, Konishi et al.: [0062]).
Claim(s) 7-11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konishi et al. (US 2010/0081055) in view of Hiratsuka et al. (US 2015/0243982) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2015/0090924).
As to claim 7, Konishi et al. in view of Hiratsuka et al. teaches positive the electrode material according to claim 6. However, this material does not satisfy the relationship 0.3 ≤ 1-(x1+y1+z1) ≤ 0.6, because for Konishi et al.’s material, 1-(x1+y1+z1) = 0.8.
Lee et al., also working on the problem of LNCM positive active materials, teaches an alternative LNCM having the formula
Li1+aNibMncCo1-(a+b+c+d)MdO2-sAs
Where 0.1 ≤ a ≤ 0.2, 0.1 ≤ b ≤ 0.4, 0.3 ≤ c ≤ 0.7, 0 ≤ d ≤ 0.1, and 0 ≤ s ≤ 0.2 (Lee et al.: abstract, [0014]-[0015]). If a = 0.1, b = 0.35, c = 0.4, d= 0, and s = 0, Lee et al.’s material can be given by the formula
Li1.1Ni0.35Co0.25Mn0.4O2
Which reads on the instantly-claimed positive electrode material as it satisfies both the inequality 0 < x1+y1+z1 ≤ 0.7 of claim 6 (since .25+.4+0 = .65) as well as the inequality 0.3 ≤ 1-(x1+y1++z1) ≤ 0.6 of claim 7 (since 1-[.25+.4+0] = 0.35).
Because Lee et al.’s LNCM is an equivalent to Konishi et al. in view of Hiratsuka et al.’s LNCM that performs the same function of acting as a positive active material, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the Li1.1Ni0.35Co0.25Mn0.4O2 taught by Lee et al. for Konishi et al. in view of Hiratsuka et al.’s first positive active material.
As to claim 8, Konishi et al. in view of Hiratsuka et al. teaches the positive electrode material according to claim 1.
However, this material does not satisfy the requirement that the nickel (Ni) among metals excluding lithium of the lithium composite transition metal oxides is included in an amount of 30 mol% or more.
Lee et al., also working on the problem of LNCM positive active materials, teaches an alternative LNCM having the formula
Li1+aNibMncCo1-(a+b+c+d)MdO2-sAs
Where 0.1 ≤ a ≤ 0.2, 0.1 ≤ b ≤ 0.4, 0.3 ≤ c ≤ 0.7, 0 ≤ d ≤ 0.1, and 0 ≤ s ≤ 0.2 (Lee et al.: abstract, [0014]-[0015]). If a = 0.1, b = 0.35, c = 0.4, d= 0, and s = 0, Lee et al.’s material can be given by the formula
Li1.1Ni0.35Co0.25Mn0.4O2
Which contains nickel (Ni) in an amount of 35 mol%, which lies within the claimed range of 30 mol% or more).
Because Lee et al.’s LNCM is an equivalent to Konishi et al. in view of Hiratsuka et al.’s LNCM that performs the same function of acting s a positive active material, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the Li1.1Ni0.35Co0.25Mn0.4O2 taught by Lee et al. for Konishi et al. in view of Hiratsuka et al.’s first positive active material.
As to claim 9, Konishi et al. in view of Hiratsuka et al. teaches the positive electrode material according to claim 1.
Konishi et al. in view of Hiratsuka et al.’s second positive active material has the formula Lix2Nia2Mnb2Coc2O2, where 0.2 ≤ x2 ≤ 1.2, a2 ≤ 0.5, 0.05 ≤ b2 ≤ 0.5, 0.05 ≤ c2 ≤ 0.5 (see e.g. Konishi et al.: [0019]). Konishi et al. in view of Hiratsuka et al. does not teach the instantly-claimed active material represented by Formula 2.
Lee et al., also working on the problem of LNCM positive active materials, teaches an alternative LNCM having the formula
LiNixMnyCo1-(x+y+z)M’zO2-tA’t
Where 0.5 ≤ x ≤ 0.8, 0.1 ≤ y ≤ 0.4, 0 ≤ z ≤ 0.1, and 0 ≤ t ≤ 0.2 (abstract, [0014]-[0015]). If x = 0.6, y = 0.2, z = 0, and t= 0, Lee et al.’s material can be given by the formula
LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2
Which reads on the instantly-claimed positive electrode material of claim 9 as it satisfies both the inequality 0 < x2+y2+z2 ≤ 0.7 of claim 9 (since 0.2+0.2+0 = 0.4).
Because Lee et al.’s LNCM is an equivalent to Konishi et al.’s LNCM that performs the same function of acting as a positive active material, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 taught by Lee et al. for Konishi et al.’s second positive active material.
As to claim 10, Konishi et al. in view of Hiratsuka et al. teaches the positive electrode material according to claim 7.
However, Konishi et al. in view of Hiratsuka et al.’s positive active material does not satisfy the relationship 0.5 < 1-(x2+y2+z2) < 0.7.
Lee et al., also working on the problem of LNCM positive active materials, teaches an alternative LNCM having the formula
LiNixMnyCo1-(x+y+z)M’zO2-tA’t
Where 0.5 ≤ x ≤ 0.8, 0.1 ≤ y ≤ 0.4, 0 ≤ z ≤ 0.1, and 0 ≤ t ≤ 0.2 (abstract, [0014]-[0015]). If x = 0.6, y = 0.2, z = 0, and t= 0, Lee et al.’s material can be given by the formula
LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2
Which reads on the instantly-claimed positive electrode material of claim 10 as it satisfies the inequality 0.5 < x2+y2+z2 ≤ 0.7 of claim 10 (since 1-[0.2+0.2+0] = 0.6).
Because Lee et al.’s LNCM is an equivalent to Konishi et al. in view of Hiratsuka et al.’s LNCM that performs the same function of acting as a positive active material, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 taught by Lee et al. for Konishi et al. in view of Hiratsuka et al.’s second positive active material.
As to claim 11, Konishi et al. in view of Hiratsuka et al. teaches the positive electrode material according to claim 7.
However, Konishi et al. in view of Hiratsuka et al.’s positive active material does not satisfy the requirement that the cobalt (Co) among metals excluding lithium of the lithium composite transition metal oxides is included in an amount of 50 mol% or less.
Lee et al., also working on the problem of LNCM positive active materials, teaches an alternative LNCM having the formula
LiNixMnyCo1-(x+y+z)M’zO2-tA’t
Where 0.5 ≤ x ≤ 0.8, 0.1 ≤ y ≤ 0.4, 0 ≤ z ≤ 0.1, and 0 ≤ t ≤ 0.2 (abstract, [0014]-[0015]). If x = 0.6, y = 0.2, z = 0, and t= 0, Lee et al.’s material can be given by the formula
LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2
Lee et al.’s positive electrode material therefore includes Co in an amount of 20 mol%, which lies within the claimed range of 50 mol% or less.
Because Lee et al.’s LNCM is an equivalent to Konishi et al. in view of Hiratsuka et al.’s LNCM that performs the same function of acting as a positive active material, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 taught by Lee et al. for Konishi et al. in view of Hiratsuka et al.‘s second positive active material.
As to claim 15, Konishi et al. in view of Hiratsuka et al. and Lee et al. teaches a lithium secondary battery (see e.g. test battery, Konishi et al.: [0062]-[0063]) comprising the positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 10 (see e.g. Konishi et al.: [0062]-[0063], disclosing a cathode that reads on the claimed positive electrode. Konishi et al. in view of Hiratsuka et al. and Lee et al.’s positive electrode meets all the limitations of claim 10 as set forth in the rejection of claim 10 above).
Claim(s) 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (WO 2016153239, as read via machine translation) in view of Park ‘999 et al. (KR 101748999, as read via machine translation) and Hiratsuka et al. (US 2015/0243982).
As to claim 1, Park et al. discloses a positive electrode material for a lithium secondary battery, comprising:
a first positive electrode active material (see e.g. cathode active material, [0058]) wherein the first positive electrode active material is a lithium composite transition metal oxide containing transition metals comprising nickel (Ni), cobalt (Co) and manganese (Mn) (see e.g. [0011]-[0015]), and the average particle size (D50) of the first positive electrode active material is from 7 mm to 20 mm (see e.g. [0041], the average secondary particle size for the first cathode active material is 5-30 mm, which overlaps and thereby renders obvious the claimed range of 7-20 mm).
Park et al. does not disclose a second positive electrode active material wherein an average particle size (D50) of the first positive electrode active material is larger than an average particle size of the second positive electrode active material and the average particle size (D50) of the second positive electrode active material is from 1 mm to 7 mm.
Park et al. is silent as to the crystallite size of the second positive electrode active material, and does not disclose that the second positive electrode active material has a crystallite size of 400 nm or less.
Park ‘999 et al., also working on the problem of positive active materials for lithium batteries, teaches a positive active material that comprises first and second materials (see e.g. cathode active materials, which comprise a bimodal distribution of small particles and neutral particles, which read on the claimed first positive active material and second positive active material, respectively. Park ‘999 et al., [0003]) wherein an average particle size (D50) of the first positive electrode active material is larger than an average particle size of the second positive electrode active material (see e.g. Park ‘999 et al.’s neutral particles, which read on the claimed first positive active material, are larger than Park ‘999 et al.’s small particles, which read on the claimed second positive active material, Park ‘999 et al., [0003]) and wherein the average particle size (D50) of the second positive electrode active material is from 1 mm to 7 mm (see e.g. Park ‘999 et al.’s small particles have a D50 of 1 mm to 7 mm, Park ‘999 et al., [0003]).
Park ‘999 et al. further teaches that the use of a bimodal positive active material improves the capacity of secondary batteries ([0003]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park et al.’s positive active material to have a bimodal distribution in the manner taught by Park ‘999 et al., such that it comprises a first active material having an average particle size of 1 mm to 7 mm and a second active material having an average particle size of 7 mm to 20 mm. Said artisan would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to improve the capacity of batteries made with the positive active material, as taught by Park ‘999 et al..
Further regarding claim 1, Park et al. is silent as to the crystallite size of the second positive electrode active material, and does not disclose that the second positive electrode active material has a crystallite size of 400 nm or less.
Hiratsuka et al., also working on the problem of positive active materials for lithium batteries, teaches a lithium transition metal oxide positive electrode active material having a crystallite size of 100 nm to 300 nm, which lies within the claimed range of 400 nm or less (see e.g. Hiratsuka et al.: [0006]-[0008]). Hiratsuka et al. teaches that crystallite sizes in this range yield positive electrode active materials having a high capacity, high energy density, and excellent cycle characteristics (see e.g. Hiratsuka et al. [0088]-[0089]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the instantly-claimed invention to modify positive electrode active material of Park et al. by making the second positive electrode active material have a crystallite size of 400 nm or less as taught by Hiratsuka et al.. Said artisan would have been motivated to make such a modification because Hiratsuka et al. teaches that lithium transition metal oxides with such a crystallite size yield high capacity, high energy density, and excellent cycle characteristics.
As to claim 2, Park et al. in view of Park ‘999 et al. and Hiratsuka et al. teaches the positive electrode material according to claim 1, wherein the second positive electrode active material has a crystallite size of 180 nm or more (see e.g. Hiratsuka et al.: [0088]-[0089], teaching a crystallite size of 100 nm to 300 nm, which overlaps and thereby renders obvious the claimed range of 180 nm or more).
As to claim 3, Park et al. in view of Park ‘999 et al. and Hiratsuka et al. teaches the positive electrode material according to claim 1, wherein the second positive electrode active material is a secondary particle formed by agglomerating primary particles (see e.g. the cathode active material is composed of primary particles, Park et al., [0058]), and the average particle size (D50) of the primary particles is 0.3 mm or more (see e.g. the primary particle size of Park et al. is 0-3 mm, which overlaps and thereby renders obvious the claimed range of 0.3 mm or more, Park et al., [0058]).
As to claim 4, Park et al. in view of Park ‘999 et al. and Hiratsuka et al. teaches the positive electrode material according to claim 3, wherein the average particle size (D50) of the primary particle is from 0.6 mm to 4 mm or less (see e.g. the primary particle size of Park et al. is 0-3 mm, which overlaps and thereby renders obvious the claimed range of 0.6 mm to 4 mm, Park et al., [0058]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALBERT HILTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4068. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 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, Tong Guo can be reached at (571)-272-3066. 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.
/A.M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/NICHOLAS P D'ANIELLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights