Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/310,805

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 25, 2021
Examiner
SON, TAEYOUNG
Art Unit
1751
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Sumitomo Metal Mining Co., Ltd.
OA Round
5 (Non-Final)
41%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 6m
To Grant
81%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 41% of resolved cases
41%
Career Allow Rate
12 granted / 29 resolved
-23.6% vs TC avg
Strong +40% interview lift
Without
With
+39.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 6m
Avg Prosecution
49 currently pending
Career history
78
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
68.7%
+28.7% vs TC avg
§102
20.0%
-20.0% vs TC avg
§112
9.5%
-30.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 29 resolved cases

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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/24/2025 has been entered. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are not found persuasive 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. Status of Application Claims 1-7 are currently pending. Claims 4-7 are withdrawn. Claim 1 is currently amended. 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. 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(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Motoaki (WO2017199891A1, US equivalent US20190165360A1 was used for citation), in view of Toya (US 20140106228A1, previously cited). Regarding claim 1, Motoaki discloses a positive electrode active material for a lithium ion secondary battery (title) containing a lithium metal composite oxide (i.e., Li1.025Ni0.88Co0.09Al0.03O2 in Example 1 [0102]), wherein the subscripts fall within the claimed ranges and Al is one of the claimed element M. Motoaki, in Examples 1-7, does not explicitly disclose wherein a thickness of a NiO layer is 200nm or less when a particle of the lithium metal composite oxide during charging at 4.3V (vs. Li+/Li) is observed by Scanning Transmission Electron Microscope-Electron Dispersive X-Ray Spectrometer, as claimed. In this regard, [PG Pub 0034] of the instant application discloses a correlation between the thickness of the NiO layer and the amount of oxygen released from the positive electrode active material during charging, wherein the amount of oxygen released is controlled by particle characteristics [PG Pub 0020]. The instant application discloses wherein the average particle diameter is preferably 5 μm or more and 20 μm or less [PG Pub 0041]. In this regard, Motoaki discloses wherein the average particle diameter of Example 1 is 12.5 μm [0102], which fall within the disclosed range of the instant application. The instant application further discloses wherein [(d90−d10)]/mean volume particle diameter] is preferably 0.80 or more, more preferably 0.85 or more, and even more preferably 0.90 or more [0045] to provide excellent filling ability and excellent energy density [0046]. In this regard, Motoaki discloses wherein[(d90−d10)]/mean volume particle diameter] is 0.80 [0102], which falls within the disclosed range. Thus, since the lithium metal composite oxide of Motoaki possesses the claimed composition within the claimed molar amount, with average particle size and particle size distribution that fall within the ranges disclosed in the instant application, when the lithium composite oxide of Motoaki is observed by Scanning Transmission Electron Microscope-Energy dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy during charging at 4.3 V (vs. Li+/Li), a person having ordinary skill in the art would envisage the thickness of a NiO layer to fall within the claimed range of 200nm or less. Further, the instant application discloses wherein the lithium metal composite oxide is incorporated into a 2032-type coin battery and subjected to charging at 4.3V [PG Pub 0143], wherein a 40 nm-thick NiO layer was formed [PG Pub 0146], wherein the battery includes a positive electrode, a negative electrode, a separator, and an electrolyte ([0137-0138], Fig 1), wherein 52.5mg of the positive electrode active material, 15 mg of acetylene black, and 7.5 mg of PTEE were mixed and the mixture was press-formed at a pressure of 100 MPa so as to be a diameter of 11 mm and a thickness of 100 μm, and dried in a vacuum dryer at 120° C. for 12 hours [PG Pub 0141]. The instant application further discloses wherein a lithium metal having a diameter of 17mm and a thickness of 1 mm was used as the negative electrode [PG Pub 0142]. The instant application further discloses wherein an equal volume mixture of ethylene carbonate (EC) and diethyl carbonate (DEC) using 1M of LiClO4 was used for the electrolyte [0142]. Further, a polyethylene porous membrane having a thickness of 25 μm was used as the separator. Motoaki also discloses that the lithium metal composite oxide is incorporated into a 2032-type coin battery subjected to charging at 4.3 V [0098], wherein the battery includes a positive electrode, a negative electrode, a separator, and an electrolyte solution [0095], wherein 52.5 mg of a positive electrode active material for nonaqueous electrolyte secondary batteries, 15 mg of acetylene black, and 7.5 mg of polytetrafluoroethylene resin (PTFE) were mixed, and press-formed at a pressure of 100 MPa to be 11 mm in diameter and 100 μm in thickness, dried in a vacuum dryer at 120 ° C for 12 hours [0095]. Motoaki further discloses wherein an anode sheet having a diameter of 14mm was used [0096], and further discloses wherein a mixture solution of ethylene carbonate (EC) and diethyl carbonate (DEC) using 1M LiClO4 was used for the electrolyte [0096]. Further, a porous polyethylene film having a film thickness of 25 μm was used as the separator [0096]. Therefore, although Motoaki does not explicitly disclose a NiO layer thickness, since the lithium metal composite oxide of Motoaki discloses the claimed composition, particle size, particle size distribution, as well as the 2032-type coin battery comprising the lithium metal composite oxide, a person having ordinary skill in the art would envisage that when the lithium metal composite oxide of Motoaki is observed by Scanning Transmission Electron Microscope-Energy dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy during charging at 4.3 V (vs. Li+/Li), the thickness of a NiO layer would fall within the claimed range of 200nm or less. Motoaki does not disclose a specific surface area and further does not disclose that the specific surface area is “1.35 m2/g or more and 2.0m2/g or less” as claimed. In this regard, Toya also teaches a positive electrode active material for a lithium ion secondary, represented as Li1+uMxWsAtO2, wherein M is at least one transitional metal selected from Ni, Co, and Mn and A is at least one additive element selected from transitional metal elements other than M and W, group 2 elements and group 13 elements [Toya 0213-0217] (e.g., Li1.02Ni0.816Co0.149Al0.030W0.005O2 [Toya 0376]). Toya discloses that Al is preferred as the additive element to improve thermal stability of the positive electrode active material [0233 Toya]. Toya further teaches wherein the positive electrode active material has a specific surface area of 0.5 to 2.0 m2/g, which encompasses the claimed range of “1.35 m2/g or more and 2.0m2/g or less”. When the surface area is less than 0.5m2/g, the positive electrode active material has a smaller contact area with an electrolyte solution, thereby reducing reaction surface area and increasing a positive electrode resistance. On the other hand, when a specific surface area is more than 2.0 m2/g, the positive electrode active material excessively contacts with an electrolyte solution, lowering thermal stability [0228 Toya]. Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the positive electrode active material of Motoaki, such that it has a specific surface area in the encompassed range of “1.35 m2/g or more and 2.0m2/g or less” with a reasonable expectation to provide sufficient reaction surface area between the positive electrode active material and the electrolyte solution and thermal stability [0228 Toya]. Regarding claim 2, modified Motoaki teaches the positive electrode active material for a lithium ion secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the average mean diameter is 12.5 µm [Motoaki 0102], which falls within the claimed range of 5 µm or more and 20 µm or less. Regarding claim 3, modified Motoaki teaches the positive electrode active material for a lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the positive electrode active material is made by a method in which a nickel composite hydroxide obtained by a crystallization method or a nickel composite oxide obtained by oxidizing-roasting of the nickel composite hydroxide is mixed with the lithium compound, which is then followed by firing the resulting mixture [Motoaki 0069]. However, Motoaki does not explicitly disclose wherein the element M (i.e., Al) is “either uniformly distributed inside secondary particles of the lithium metal composite oxide or uniformly coated on surfaces of the secondary particles” as claimed. In this regard, Toya teaches wherein the positive electrode active material comprises an additive element A, wherein the additive element A is preferably Al to improve thermal stability of the positive electrode active material [Toya 0233]. Toya further teaches that the additive element is uniformly distributed on the surfaces or the inside of the positive electrode active material particles so that effects such as improved thermal stability, durable characteristics, and output characteristics can be achieved in the whole particles [Toya 0233, 0236]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the positive electrode active material of Motoaki, such that the aluminum (i.e., claimed element M) is uniformly distributed on the surfaces or the inside of the positive electrode active material particles, with a reasonable expectation to improve thermal stability, durable characteristics, and output characteristics throughout the positive electrode active material particles [Toya 0233, 0236]. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAEYOUNG SON whose telephone number is (703)756-1427. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5pm. 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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1292. 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. /T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1751 /JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 3/5/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 25, 2021
Application Filed
May 28, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Aug 29, 2024
Response Filed
Nov 25, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Feb 28, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 03, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 18, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Sep 19, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 30, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Dec 24, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 02, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 02, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12592415
Solid-liquid battery
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12548821
HIGH VOLTAGE BATTERY COMPONENT AND METHOD OF ASSEMBLING A HIGH-VOLTAGE BATTERY COMPONENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12542332
BATTERY VENTILATION SYSTEMS AND METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Patent 12525677
Battery Pack, Electronic Device, and Vehicle
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 13, 2026
Patent 12489180
LITHIUM SECONDARY BATTERY AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 02, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

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

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
41%
Grant Probability
81%
With Interview (+39.6%)
3y 6m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 29 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month