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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/12/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Arguments have been entered. Arguments do overcome the 103-rejection set forth in final office action mailed 01/13/2026. New grounds of rejection have been set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-20210167366-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Leng’, in view of (US-20190248673-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Kaneda’
Regarding Claim 11,
Leng teaches a positive electrode active material, comprising: particles of a lithium composite oxide (Leng, “positive electrode active material layer on a surface of the positive electrode current collector, the positive electrode active material layer includes a positive electrode active material, the positive electrode active material includes a first lithium nickel transition metal oxide and a second lithium nickel transition metal oxide,”, see Abstract) having a layered structure (Leng, “Layered lithium transition metal oxides with a higher content of nickel are selected as the first lithium nickel transition metal oxide and the second lithium nickel transition metal oxide in the present application, which may effectively improve energy density of a battery;”, see [0092]), wherein the positive electrode active material has a tap density of 2.8 g/cm3 to 3.0 g/cm3 (Leng, “In the positive electrode sheet provided by the present application, the tap density TD of the positive electrode active material may be… 2.8 g/cm3”, see [0044]) , the particles of the lithium composite oxide include first lithium composite oxide particles having a layered structure, an average particle size of 3.0 µm to 6.0 µm (Leng, “the second lithium nickel transition metal oxide has a particle size Dv50 (S) of 4.3 μm”, see [0116]); and second lithium composite oxide particles having a layered structure, an average particle size of 10.0 µm to 22.0 µm (Leng, “the first lithium nickel transition metal oxide has a particle size Dv50 (L) of 12.3 μm”, see [0116])
Leng does not teach the positive electrode active material has a dibutyl phthalate absorption value of 14.6 mL/100g to 18.2mL/100g, a dibutyl phthalate absorption value of 14 mL/100g to 22 mL/100, or and a dibutyl phthalate absorption value of 15 mL/100g to 27 mL/100g.
Kaneda teaches a positive electrode active material has a dibutyl phthalate absorption value of 14.6 mL/100g to 1825mL/100g, a dibutyl phthalate absorption value of 14 mL/100g to 22 mL/100, or and a dibutyl phthalate absorption value of 15 mL/100g to 27 mL/100g (Kaneda, “Example 2, Oil Absorption 17.7”, see Table 2).
Kaneda teaches that an oil absorption of this number can allow for sufficient capacity (Kaneda, “When the oil absorption amount is within the range described above, the secondary battery using the positive electrode active material 10 in the positive electrode can retain a sufficient amount of the electrolyte solution in the positive electrode so that migration of a lithium ion intervened by the electrolyte solution is not limited, and thus, a sufficient battery capacity can be obtained”, see [0081]).
Leng and Kaneda are analogous as they are both of the same field of positive electrodes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first and second particles as taught in Leng to have the absorption value as taught in Kaneda in order to obtain sufficient capacity for the positive electrode.
Regarding Claim 12,
Modified Leng teaches the positive electrode active material according to claim 11, wherein the positive electrode active material has the dibutyl phthalate absorption value of 16.0 mL/100g to 18.2 mL/100g.2 (Kaneda, “Example 2, Oil Absorption 17.7”, see Table 2)
Response to Arguments
Arguments filed on 05/12/2026 have been entered. Arguments are fully considered.
On pg. 4, The applicant argues:
“The properties of the at least one embodiment of the instant application differ significantly from the references so that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have predicted such significant results, in other words, unexpected results. Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that at least one embodiment according to claim 11 exhibits unexpected results over the cited references.”
The examiner finds this convincing, and has added the 103 rejection in over ‘Leng’ in view of ‘Kaneda.’ Leng teaches the two separate particles of layered composite oxides as claimed and ‘Kaneda’ anticipates the DBP absorption value and associates it with a high-performance cell, which demonstrate the results are not unexpected to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAMUS PATRICK MCNULTY whose telephone number is (703)756-1909. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:00am to 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, Nicholas A. Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/S.P.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights