Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/658,418

POSITIVE ACTIVE MATERIAL PRECURSOR FOR RECHARGEABLE LITHIUM BATTERY, METHOD FOR PREPARING POSITIVE ACTIVE MATERIAL USING THE PRECURSOR, AND POSITIVE ACTIVE MATERIAL FOR RECHARGEABLE LITHIUM BATTERY

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
Apr 07, 2022
Examiner
MARTIN, TRAVIS LYNDEN
Art Unit
1721
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Samsung Electronics
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
54%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 6m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 54% of resolved cases
54%
Career Allow Rate
25 granted / 46 resolved
-10.7% vs TC avg
Strong +52% interview lift
Without
With
+51.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 6m
Avg Prosecution
39 currently pending
Career history
85
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
39.7%
-0.3% vs TC avg
§102
29.5%
-10.5% vs TC avg
§112
28.9%
-11.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 46 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
DETAILED ACTION Introductory Notes Any paragraph citation of the instant is in reference to the U.S. published patent application. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/31/2025 has been entered. Election/Restrictions Newly submitted claim 27 is dependent upon previously non-elected and withdrawn claim 14, therefore claim 27 is withdrawn. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claims 1-2, 4-12, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by SUN (US 20220328821 A1, supplied with the IDS of 4/22/2024). Regarding claims 1 and 5, SUN discloses a positive active material precursor (“positive electrode active material precursor”, Claim 1) for a rechargeable lithium battery (“lithium secondary battery”, Abstract), the positive active material precursor having a form of a core-shell particle comprising a core and a shell around the core (“center portion” and “surface portion”, Claim 1; as well as synonymous use of “core” and “shell” such as in [0105]), wherein the core comprises a first nickel-manganese-based composite hydroxide comprising nickel and manganese (“a first center portion made of a material represented by a following Chemical Formula 1 … Ni1-xM1x(OH)2”, Claim 1, wherein M1 may be manganese per claim 1 and [0010]), the shell comprises a second nickel-manganese-based composite hydroxide comprising nickel, manganese, and a pillar element, and the pillar element comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of Al, Mo, Ti, W, and Zr (“a first surface portion made of a material represented by the following Chemical Formula 2 … Ni1-y-zM1yM2z(OH)2”, Claim 1, wherein M1 may be manganese and M2 may be molybdenum, titanium, tungsten, or zirconium per claim 1 and [0010]). Regarding “a thickness of the shell is at least about 25% of a radius of the core-shell particle”, notably the instant states in paragraph [0124] that ““about” may refer to one or more standard deviations, or ±30%, 20%, 10%, 5% of the stated value”. When applying this definition of about and the ±30% value to the claim, the claimed range becomes ‘at least 17.5%’, where the math is: 25% - (30% of 25%, or 7.5%). SUN discloses “a thickness of the first surface portion with respect to an average radius of the positive electrode active material precursor is in a range of 2% to 20%” in SUN claim 1 as well as Example 1 where relative thickness of the shell to the total core-shell size is 18.2% (per [0105] where core diameter is 9 µm and total diameter is 11 µm giving 2/11 or 18% for shell thickness and radius vs diameter does not alter the relative percent). Regarding claim 2, SUN discloses the core does not comprise the pillar element (claim 1 wherein M2 is present in Chemical Formula 2 but not in Chemical Formula 1). Regarding claim 4, SUN discloses a content of the pillar element in the shell is about 1 mol% to about 7 mol% based on 100 mol% of the total metal in the shell (“M2 has a content in a range of 0.5 mol % to 10 mol %”, Claim 4; as well as “M2 has a content in a range of 0.5 mol % to 2 mol %”, Claim 5). Regarding claim 6, SUN discloses a difference between a molar concentration of nickel based on the total metal in the core and a molar concentration of nickel based on the total metal in the shell is greater than or equal to about 0 mol% and less than or equal to about 40 mol%, and a difference between a molar concentration of manganese based on the total metal in the core and a molar concentration of manganese based on the total metal in the shell is greater than or equal to about 0 mol% and less than or equal to about 40 mol% (“Present Example 9” [0135] with core-shell of: Ni0.8Co0.01Mn0.1(OH)2-Ni0.792Co0.099Mn0.099W0.01(OH)2 wherein the difference in nickel and manganese from core to shell is less than 40% for each). Regarding claim 7, SUN discloses a difference between a molar concentration of nickel based on the total metal in the core and a molar concentration of nickel based on the total metal in the shell is greater than or equal to about 0 mol% and less than or equal to about 20 mol%, and a difference between a molar concentration of manganese based on the total metal in the core and a molar concentration of manganese based on the total metal in the shell is greater than or equal to about 0 mol% and less than or equal to about 20 mol% (“Present Example 9” [0135] with core-shell of: Ni0.8Co0.01Mn0.1(OH)2-Ni0.792Co0.099Mn0.099W0.01(OH)2 wherein the difference in nickel and manganese from core to shell is less than 20% for each). Regarding claims 8 and 9, the claim states: the core comprises a nickel-manganese-based composite hydroxide represented by Chemical Formula 1, the shell comprises a nickel-manganese-based composite hydroxide represented by Chemical Formula 2: PNG media_image1.png 685 1031 media_image1.png Greyscale SUN discloses “a first center portion made of a material represented by a following Chemical Formula 1 … Ni1-xM1x(OH)2”, Claim 1, wherein M1 may be manganese per claim 1 and [0010]; “a first surface portion made of a material represented by the following Chemical Formula 2 … Ni1-y-zM1yM2z(OH)2”, Claim 1, wherein M1 may be manganese and M2 may be molybdenum, titanium, tungsten, or zirconium per claim 1 and [0010]; as well as “0≤x≤0.2, 0≤y≤0.2, and 0.005≤z≤0.1” in Claim 1 and [0010]. Mapping SUN to instant as follows (SUN=instant): 1-y-z = x1, y = y1, z = z1. As such, SUN discloses the claimed chemical formulas as well as the constraints regarding instant x1 (SUN discloses 0.7 to 0.995), y1 (SUN discloses 0 to 0.2), and z1 (SUN discloses 0.005 to 0.1). In regards to instant a1-x1 and b1-y1, these values are within the possible values disclosed in SUN and further they are an alternative restatement of claim 6, see the rejection of claim 6 for further discussion including reference to SUN “Present Example 9” [0135]. Regarding claim 10, SUN discloses the positive active material precursor has a spherical shape (“the first secondary particle may have a substantially spherical shape” [0072]; Figs. 1A, 1B, 2A). Regarding claim 11, SUN discloses the positive active material precursor has an average particle diameter (D50) of about 8 µm to about 15 µm (“precursor with an average diameter of 11.6 μm was produced” [0135]). Regarding claim 12, SUN discloses the core-shell particle is a secondary particle in which a plurality of primary particles is agglomerated (“a first secondary particle as an aggregate of a plurality of first primary particles” [0009]). Regarding claim 26, SUN discloses the core comprises about 0 mol% to about 1 mol% of cobalt based on the total content of metals in the core (claim 1 and [0010] wherein M1 may be manganese and/or aluminum therefore cobalt mol% is zero). Response to Arguments Regarding art-based rejections, applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are not persuasive. On page 10 of the remarks applicant states “the amendment introduces a quantitative limitation that is not disclosed or even suggested in Sun”. Examiner disagrees as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Notably the instant states in paragraph [0124] that ““about” may refer to one or more standard deviations, or ±30%, 20%, 10%, 5% of the stated value”. When applying this definition of about to the claim, the claimed range becomes ‘at least 17.5%’, where the math is: 25% - (30% of 25%, or 7.5%). Therefore, the limitation read in its entirety is disclosed and suggested in Sun. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (previously cited): YUN (US 20200119351 A1) directed to nickel-based active material precursor includes a particulate structure including a core portion, an intermediate layer portion on the core portion, and a shell portion on the intermediate layer portion. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAVIS L MARTIN whose telephone number is (703)756-5449. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-5pm ET. 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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303)297-4684. 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.L.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1721 /ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 07, 2022
Application Filed
Apr 09, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102
Jul 15, 2025
Response Filed
Aug 24, 2025
Final Rejection — §102
Oct 31, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 01, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Dec 02, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 22, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603403
ELECTRODE STRUCTURE AND ALL-SOLID SECONDARY BATTERY INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603396
ELECTRODE ASSEMBLY, METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING THE SAME AND SECONDARY BATTERY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603391
All-In-One Electrode Stack Unit, Manufacturing Method Thereof, and Lithium Secondary Battery Including the Same
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12597604
NONAQUEOUS ELECTROLYTE SECONDARY BATTERY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12592386
METHOD FOR PRODUCING COMPOSITE PARTICLE, POSITIVE ELECTRODE, AND ALL-SOLID-STATE BATTERY, AND COMPOSITE PARTICLE, POSITIVE ELECTRODE, AND ALL-SOLID-STATE BATTERY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
54%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+51.9%)
3y 6m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 46 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