DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Office action addresses claims 1-24. Claims 10-18 remain withdrawn from consideration. The statement of common ownership is sufficient to remove the Lee et al. reference as prior art. The double patenting rejection has been withdrawn, and the 112(b) rejection has also been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s remarks. Claims 1, 2, 5 and 9 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over JP ‘226 for the reasons of record. Claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 19-24 are objected to as containing allowable subject matter. Accordingly, this action is made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 2, 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2000-340226.
Regarding claim 1, the reference is directed to a positive active material comprising a lithium manganese nickel composite oxide (see abstract, Table 1; M=Ni) that has a plurality of large primary particles agglomerated into a secondary particle (7) having a hollow center having a pore (6) inside (Fig. 2). Regarding claim 9, the secondary particle comprises one layer of large primary particles. Regarding claims 1 and 5, the primary particles are preferably 0.1 to 5 microns, and the secondary particles are preferably 5-20 microns (see [0019], [0023] of machine translation).
While not anticipatory of the size ranges of claims 1 and 5, the disclosed ranges overlap therewith. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (In re Wertheim, 191USPQ 90; In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934).
Regarding claim 2, the size of the pore (hollow portion) would also be rendered obvious by the disclosure of secondary particle size of JP ‘226. The size of the hollow portion would be constrained (controlled) by the overall size of the secondary particle. Therefore, by using a secondary particle within the claimed range of 10-18 microns, the hollow portion having a size of 2-7 microns as claimed would be rendered obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed August 1, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive insofar as they apply to the present rejection. Regarding JP ‘226, Applicants state that “Fukuda [does] not teach, disclose, or at least suggest these features [secondary particle having a hollow center].” However, it is noted that the reference teaches such a secondary particle having a hollow center in Figure 2 thereof. As there appear to be no further remarks with respect to this reference, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, 6-8 and 19-24 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Dependent claim 3 recites a formula which is a layered (O2) type structure. It would not have been obvious to reformulate the spinel (O4) type structure of JP ‘226 as a layered structure. As such, claim 3 contains allowable subject matter. Dependent claims 6, 7, and 8 separately relate to X-ray diffraction attributes of the claimed active material. Such properties are not disclosed and would not be rendered obvious by the reference as at least the composition is not the same.
Dependent claim 19 recites a positive electrode comprising a positive active material layer comprising the active material of claim 1 (having a hollow center) and at least one of a large particle having the same composition as the positive active material, and an agglomeration thereof. The term “large particle” has been accorded the definition disclosed in the specification. JP ‘226 does not teach or fairly suggest a positive electrode having this combination of particles.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 Jonathan Crepeau whose telephone number is (571) 272-1299. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:30 AM - 6:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Nicole Buie-Hatcher, can be reached at (571) 270-3879. The phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 272-1700. Documents may be faxed to the central fax server at (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Jonathan Crepeau/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
October 21, 2025