Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/893,617

METHOD FOR PRODUCING CATHODE ACTIVE MATERIAL, CATHODE ACTIVE MATERIAL, AND LITHIUM ION SECONDARY BATTERY

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Aug 23, 2022
Examiner
ORTIZ, ARYANA YASMINE
Art Unit
1751
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
47%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
68%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 47% of resolved cases
47%
Career Allow Rate
21 granted / 45 resolved
-18.3% vs TC avg
Strong +21% interview lift
Without
With
+21.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
63 currently pending
Career history
108
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.0%
-39.0% vs TC avg
§103
68.1%
+28.1% vs TC avg
§102
15.1%
-24.9% vs TC avg
§112
12.3%
-27.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 45 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/30/2025 has been entered. Response to Amendment This is a non-final Office action in response to Applicant’s remarks and amendments filed on 12/30/2025. Claims 1, 8 and 10 are amended. Claims 1 – 7 remain withdrawn. Claims 8 – 13 are pending review in the current Office action. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection set forth in the previous Office action is withdrawn. A new grounds of rejection necessitated by applicant’s amendment is presented below. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 8 and the claimed D50 range 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) 8 – 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Motobayashi (WO2021111551A1, Machine translation provided) in view of Kuroda (US PG Pub. 2021/0083286 A1), Cotton (US PG Pub. 2010/0273054 A1, cited in previous Office action mailed 09/30/2025), Endo (P2015118892A, cited in previous Office action mailed 09/30/2025), Takayuki (JP2017152359A, cited in previous Office action mailed 09/30/2025) and Shizuka (US PG Pub. 2007/0202405 A1, cited in previous Office action mailed 09/30/2025). Regarding Claim 8 and 10 – 13, Motobayashi discloses a cathode active material comprising a composite oxide ([0033][0036]), wherein the composite oxide contains Li and Me, wherein Me is at least one of Ni, Co, Mn, which is within the claimed selection of at least one of Ni, Co, Mn, Al, and Fe, that is Motobayashi particularly teaches using lithium cobalt oxide or lithium manganese oxide for the oxide-based positive electrode active material ([0036]). Motobayashi further discloses in the composite oxide, from a granule side, in an accumulated particle distribution as a volume reference, when D10 designates a particle size of 10% accumulation, D50 designates a particle size of 50% accumulation, and D90 designates a particle size of 90% accumulation, a D50 of, most preferably 0.1 µm to 1.0 µm ([0034];[0037 – 0038];[0044]), which overlaps the claimed range of 0.3 µm or more and less than 1.0 µm. Motobayashi teaches that powders having a D50 larger than 1.0 µm do not adhere well together and thus may not form a sufficient active material layer thickness ([0037]). Motobayashi further teaches a preference for selecting a D50 in the range of 0.8 µm or less and indicates that as the D50 decreases the ease of handling/workability of the material decreases ([0037 – 0038]). Therefore, selection of a D50 within the overlapping portion of the claimed range and the range taught by Motobyashi , would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the workability/ease of handling of the particles, with a reasonable expectation of success and without undue experimentation [See MPEP 2144.05(II)]. Motobayashi further teaches having the D10 of the active material be in the range of 0.01 µm to 0.5 µm and the D90/D10 be in the range of 10 or less; therefore, Motobayashi implicitly teaches a D90 range of 5 µm or less ([0039]). One with ordinary skill in the art would recognize, based on the taught D50, D10, and D90 ranges, that Motobayashi’s cathode active material would provide a (D90 – D10)/D50 that overlaps/at least encompasses the claimed range of 0.9 or more and 1.7 or less. Kuroda teaches a lithium metal composite oxide powder for a positive electrode that having a 90% cumulative volumetric particle diameter D90, 10% cumulative volumetric particle diameter D10, and 50% cumulative volumetric particle size D50, that provides a ratio, (D90 – D10)/D50 of less than 2.0 ([0010]). Kuroda further teaches, most preferably having the ratio be 0.5 of more and 1.8 or less to achieve higher filling of the positive electrode active material and increased battery energy density ([0062 – 0066]). It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to control the particle size distribution of Motobayashi’s active material such that the (D90 – D10)/D50 provides a value within the range taught by Kuroda, and thus obtain a range that overlaps the claimed range, with a reasonable expectation of success is achieving increased energy density through higher active material filling. Cotton teaches, with respect to electrode active material, that narrow particle distributions result in dense packing of active material particles, and, thus provide an electrode with lower material density and higher porosity ([0022]). Cotton further teaches that large particles, on a scale of the thickness of the electrode, generate surface non-uniformity, while small particles have more surface area than larger ones, and, as a result increase the potential for inter-particle interactions that cause effects such as agglomeration or suspension instability ([0023]). Therefore, selection of a (D90 - D10)/D50 within the overlapping portion of the claimed range and the range of modified Motobayashi would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the surface uniformity and loading of the Motobayashi’s cathode layer in addition to the overall energy density of Motobayashi’s battery, with a reasonable expectation of success and without undue experimentation [See MPEP 2144.05(II)]. Modified Motobayashi does not explicitly disclose wherein a residual Na concentration in the composite oxide is 0.010 wt% or more and 0.134 wt% or less. Endo teaches a lithium transition metal composite oxide material for the positive electrode of a lithium secondary battery that contains a total content of residual Na and K of 1,000 ppm {i.e. about 0.1 wt%} or more and 20,000 ppm {i.e. about 2 wt%} or less ([0018];[0026];[0028]). The residual Na and K is included in the lithium transition composite metal oxide to obtain an increase in discharge capacity and an improvement in input/output characteristics ([0025 – 0026];[0028]). It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the active material of Motobayashi to include residual Na and K in the amount taught by Endo, and thus obtain a composite oxide material with a residual Na concentration that overlaps/encompasses the claimed range of 0.010 wt% or more and 0.134 wt% or less, with a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the benefit of increased discharge capacity and an improved input/output characteristics. Takayuki teaches, for a lithium composite oxide positive electrode active material, controlling the Na content to be 300 ppm {i.e. 0.03 wt%}, and further teaches that, when the amount of impurities is large, it can become difficult to synthesize a lithium composite compound or the safety of the battery can be impaired ([0031 – 0033];[0045]). Therefore, selection of an amount of Na within the overlapping portion of the claimed range and the Endo’s taught range, would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the effects of the residual Na without compromising the safety of the battery/synthesis process of the active material, with a reasonable expectation of success and without undue experimentation [See MPEP 2144.05(II)]. Modified Motobayashi does not disclose a bulk density of the composite oxide being 1.8 g/cm3 or more and 2.3 g/cm3 (Claim 8), 1.8 g/cm3 or more and 3.0 g/cm3 (Claim 10), 1.8 g/cm3 or more and 2.5 g/cm3 or less (Claim 11), 2.1 g/cm3 or more and 3.0 g/cm3 or less (Claim 12), or further 2.1 g/cm3 or more and 2.5 g/cm3 or less (Claim 13). Shizuka teaches a lithium nickel-manganese-cobalt composite oxide positive electrode active material having bulk density of generally 1.5 g/cc – 3 g/cc and most preferably 2.1 g/cc – 2.6 g/cc ([0015];[0050]). Bulk densities lower than the lower limit are taught by Shizuka to adversely affect powder packing and electrode preparation, and further result in an active material having too low a capacity density per unit volume. Bulk densities higher than the upper limit are taught by Shizuka to result smaller specific surface areas of the active material and further reduced battery performance ([0050]). High bulk densities are taught to be preferable in Shizuka, because such densities are preferred for powder packing and electrode density improvements ([0050]). Since Motobayashi teaches employing their composite oxide material in a cathode active material layer ([0033 – 0034]), it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to control the bulk density of the active material, to be within the range taught by Shizuka, and thus obtain a bulk density that overlaps all of the claimed ranges, with a reasonable expectation of success in achieving an active material suitable for a battery electrode and capable of providing an improved electrode density. Selection within the overlapping portion of the claimed bulk density ranges and the taught bulk density range would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of optimizing the positive electrode density while preventing the active material specific surface area from becoming too small and reducing battery performance, with a reasonable expectation of success and without undue experimentation [MPEP 2144.05(II)]. Regarding Claim 9, modified Motobayashi discloses all limitation as set forth above. Motobayashi further discloses a lithium ion secondary battery ([0050];[0071]) comprising a cathode layer (Fig. 1, 2 [0027];[0050];[0051]), an anode layer ([0051];[0071]), and an electrolyte layer arranged between the cathode layer and the anode layer (Fig. 1, 1; [0027 – 0028];[0050 – 0051]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARYANA Y ORTIZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5986. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 AM - 5:00 PM. 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. /A.Y.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1751 /JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 1/9/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 23, 2022
Application Filed
Jun 11, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Sep 11, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 24, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Dec 30, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 02, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 08, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12592462
Pouch-Shaped Battery Cell Configured Such that Replenishment of Electrolytic Solution is Possible
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12573690
Pouch Type Secondary Battery And Method For Manufacturing The Same
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12555768
CATHODE ACTIVE MATERIAL FOR LITHIUM SECONDARY BATTERY AND LITHIUM SECONDARY BATTERY INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12525605
CATHODE ACTIVE MATERIAL FOR LITHIUM SECONDARY BATTERY AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 13, 2026
Patent 12444772
SOLID-STATE BATTERY
2y 5m to grant Granted Oct 14, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
47%
Grant Probability
68%
With Interview (+21.0%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 45 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