Office Action Predictor
Application No. 17/310,692

POSITIVE ELECTRODE ACTIVE MATERIAL FOR LITHIUM ION SECONDARY BATTERY, METHOD OF MANUFACTURING POSITIVE ELECTRODE ACTIVE MATERIAL FOR LITHIUM ION SECONDARY BATTERY, AND LITHIUM ION SECONDARY BATTERY

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Aug 18, 2021
Examiner
AMPONSAH, OSEI K
Art Unit
1752
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Sumitomo Metal Mining Co., LTD.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 5m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

72%
Career Allow Rate
487 granted / 679 resolved
Without
With
+26.4%
Interview Lift
avg trend
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
69 pending
748
Total Applications
career history

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
66.1%
+26.1% vs TC avg
§102
19.0%
-21.0% vs TC avg
§112
9.1%
-30.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data

Office Action

§103
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04-11-2025 has been entered. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01-29-2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Response to Amendment Upon consideration, the previous rejection of record was withdrawn in light of new amendments. However new rejection is applied to the amended claims. All changes made in the rejection are necessitated by the amendment. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-7, 9-12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claim(s) 1, 9, and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2015-026456 A hereinafter Inoue in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2016/0172674 hereinafter Oda. Regarding Claims 1 and 10-12, Inoue teaches a positive electrode active material for a lithium ion secondary battery (paragraph 3) containing lithium composite oxide particles (paragraph 17), the lithium composite oxide particles comprising: lithium (Li), nickel (Ni), manganese (Mn), zirconium (Zr), and an additive element M in an amount of substance ratio of Li:Ni:Mn:Zr:M = a:b:c:d:e, wherein a = 1.14, b = 0.328, c = 0.328, d = 0.002, and e = 0.333 [see Example 1, paragraph 93 (the recited M = Co and W, making the recited e = (0.33*0.993) + 0.005 ≈ 0.333)], wherein a half-value width FWHM(003) of a peak of a (003) plane and a half-value width FWHM(104) of a peak of a (104) plane calculated from an X-ray diffraction pattern in the lithium composite oxide satisfy the following relation: FWHM(104) ≥ FWHM(003) x 2.90 – 0.10 (see Table 2, Ex. 1, FWHM(003) = 0.060, and FWHM(104) = 0.122; 0.122 ≥ (0.060 x 2.90) – 0.10 ≥ 0.074; see paragraphs 17 and 18 to note that these values were calculated via XRD). Inoue does not specifically disclose that the half-value width of a peak of a (104) plane calculated from an X- ray diffraction pattern in the lithium composite oxide is 0.089 or more and 0.094 or less; and the ratio of the half-value width of the peak of the (003) plane to the half-value width of the peak of the (104) plane is 0.58 or more and 0.93 or less. However, Oda teaches a cathode (positive electrode) for a secondary battery (paragraph 36), the cathode comprising: a cathode active material that includes LiNiCoMnMO2, wherein M is at least one of Al or Zr (paragraph 36). Oda further teaches that the cathode active material is such that the peak half-value width of (003), and the peak half-value width of (104), in X-ray diffraction pattern is FWHM (003)/FWHM (104) of 0.7 or less (paragraphs 10, 45); and wherein the crystallite size that is found from the half peak width of the diffraction peak at plane (003) is in the range of 80 nm to 140 nm, and the crystallite size that is found from the half peak width of the diffraction peak at plane (104) is in the range of 40 nm to 80 nm (paragraph 21). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art form a cathode active material having the compositional formula described above and the FWHM (003)/FWHM (104) being 0.7 or less before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Oda discloses that such configuration can improve crystallinity and provide a high-capacity active material with excellent cycle characteristics (paragraph 33). The use of a known technique (i.e., FWHM (003)/FWHM (104) being 0.7 or less) to improve similar products (or methods) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S . _ ,_, 82 USPQ2cl 1385, 1395 - 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.). In addition, 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 9, Inoue teaches a lithium-ion secondary battery having a positive electrode including the positive electrode active material for a lithium-ion secondary battery (paragraphs 96, 97, 101). Claim(s) 3-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue and Oda as applied above, and further in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0372109 hereinafter Moon. The combination of Inoue and Oda is described above and incorporated herein. Regarding Claims 3-7, Inoue teaches a substantially similar positive electrode active material and a substantially similar manufacturing method compared to the instant claims, it is submitted that Inoue’s active material would necessarily exhibit similar characteristics as that of the claimed. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established, as set forth in MPEP 2112.01 (I). Inoue fails to explicitly disclose further comprising a lithium-zirconium composite oxide. However, Moon, teaches a composite cathode active material having a Zr-doped NCM material coated with a monoclinic Li2ZrO3 in the grain boundaries between adjacent primary particles (paragraph 118). Moon teaches that such a coating suppresses a side reaction between the primary particles and an electrolyte, suppresses the release of a transition metal from the primary particles, and secures 2-D transfer paths of Li ions, yielding a battery with improved capacity retention (paragraph 162). Moon and Inoue are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely composite oxide positive electrode active materials. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to coat Inoue’s Zr-doped composite oxide positive electrode active material with monoclinic Li2ZrO3, as suggested by Moon, with the reasonable expectation that doing so would suppress a side reaction between the primary particles and an electrolyte, suppress the release of a transition metal from the primary particles, and secure 2-D transfer paths of Li ions, yielding a battery with improved capacity retention, as taught by Moon. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OSEI K AMPONSAH whose telephone number is (571)270-3446. 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, Ula C Ruddock 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. /OSEI K AMPONSAH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 18, 2021
Application Filed
Jul 13, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Oct 01, 2024
Response Filed
Jan 10, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Apr 03, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Apr 03, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Apr 11, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Apr 14, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 30, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Apr 03, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology. Study what changed to get past this examiner.

Patent 12586819
Non-Aqueous Electrolyte and Lithium Secondary Battery Including the Same
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12580223
STABILIZED SOLID GARNET ELECTROLYTE AND METHODS THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12573615
All-Solid-State Battery and Method of Manufacturing the Same
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12573717
MICROPOROUS MEMBRANES, SEPARATORS, LITHIUM BATTERIES, AND RELATED METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12567648
EXPLOSIVE ENVIRONMENT NEUTRALIZATION IN CHEMICAL ENERGY STORAGE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026

AI Strategy Recommendation

Click below to generate an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
72%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+26.4%)
3y 5m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 679 resolved cases by this examiner