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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/16/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
This Office action is responsive to amendments and remarks filed on 3/16/2026.
Claims 1, 4 and 5 have been amended.
Claims 1-5 are currently pending.
Response to Amendment
In light of the amendment the rejection to claims 1-5 under §112(b) is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The essence of the applicant's argument on page 5 of the remarks appears to be that the definition, according to the applicant, of a primary particle is that it is not aggregated. While the office is not commenting on this assertion at this point in the prosecution, the examiner would like to point out that the rejection of record using KIM shows primary, or non-aggregated particles in several figures including figures 3a and 3f. Furthermore, on the same page, the applicant attacks the shape of the particle, in particular that it is not the shape of a polygon. The drawing in figure 1D clearly depicts a polygon as well as the scans of figures 3E, 3H, 3I, J, K as well as other figures throughout KIM. Furthermore the argument on page 6 of the remarks concerning the Li-site being less than the claimed range is not persuasive. The applicant points out that the two sintering temperature are not identical but fails to make a persuasive argument that the Li-site occupancy of the claimed invention would be different or superior in any way from the active material disclosed by KIM.
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20180026267 A1, KIM et al.
Regarding claim 1. KIM discloses a positive electrode active material [abstract] for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery, comprising
KIM [0059] discloses a plurality of primary particles containing a lithium-transition metal composite oxide containing 85 mol% or more of Ni based on a total number of moles of metal elements excluding Li,
KIM [0059] discloses Lia(Ni1-x-y-zCoxMnyMz)O2 Formula 1
[0060] In Formula 1, M may be an element selected from boron (B), magnesium (Mg), calcium (Ca), strontium (Sr), barium (Ba), titanium (Ti), vanadium (V), chromium (Cr), iron (Fe), copper (Cu), zirconium (Zr), and aluminum (Al), and
[0061] a, x, y, and z may satisfy the following relations: 0.95 ≦ a ≦ 1.3,
x ≦ (1−x−y−z), y ≦ (1−x−y−z), z ≦ (1−x−y−z), 0 < x < 1, 0 ≦ y < 1, and 0 ≦ z < 1
KIM does not explicitly disclose the limitation “a Li-site occupancy of the lithium-transition metal composite oxide is 80% or more”.
When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § § 2112- 2112.02.
KIM does not explicitly disclose the properties as claimed in the instant application, however because of the fact that formula 1 of KIM reads on the formula in paragraph [0024] of the instant specification it would be reasonable to conclude that the properties of the active material would also be the same.
Fig 1C discloses a particle cross section of the single particles/primary particles has a polygon shape including a side having a length of 1.5 µm or longer [0099], and at least three interior angles of the polygon are 45° to 160° (as shown in figure 3E below).
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, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
The elements used in the salts in the instant ranges are well known in the art. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used this stoichiometric range in the instant claim.
PNG
media_image1.png
505
485
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2. KIM discloses the positive electrode active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein a Li-site occupancy of the lithium-transition metal composite oxide is 98% or more
KIM [0059-0062] discloses Lia where 0.95 ≥ a ≥ 1.3. and the instant specification discloses Lia where 0.9 ≥ a ≥ 1.2 it is reasonable to assume that the physical property for the Li-site is the same.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 3. KIM discloses the positive electrode active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 1.
KIM discloses the plurality of primary particles further comprising a second set of the primary particles that are aggregated as secondary particles in the annotated figure depicted below, the secondary particles comprising aggregates of 2 or more and 10 or fewer primary particles,
PNG
media_image2.png
470
792
media_image2.png
Greyscale
KIM does not specifically disclose 20% or more of a total surface area of the primary particle are present on a surface of the secondary particle.
KIM [0141] teaches “Ammonia water was added to a reactor, and raw materials for a nickel-based active material were mixed together to prepare a mixture of the raw materials of the nickel-based active material.” [0143] “The reaction was carried out with continuous stirring for about 20 hours.” [0147] for example 4 Ni0.85Co0.1Al0.05(OH)2 which reads on the instant application example 2.
KIM [0149-0150] a first heat treatment was performed on the mixture at a temperature of about 800° C. for about 6 hours in air followed by a second heat treatment was performed on the secondary particle A at a temperature of about 850° C. for about 6 hours in air.
The instant application [0038] calls for the active material to first be calcinated between 720 °C to 1000 °C and the second calcination between 600 °C and 800 °C.
Since similar temperatures are used for manufacturing, it is expected that 20% or more of sides of the primary particle are present on a surface of the secondary particle.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 4. The positive electrode active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein an average porosity of the particles is 3% or less [0071] (0.1%-2% and 1%-8%).
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, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 5. KIM discloses a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery [0113], comprising:
a positive electrode having:
a positive electrode core [0038]: and
a positive electrode mixture layer [0115] provided on a surface of the positive electrode core and including the positive electrode active material according to claim 1:
a negative electrode [0114]: and
a non-aqueous electrolyte [0113],
a BET specific surface area of the positive electrode mixture layer before charging and discharging is 2.6 m2/g or less, the instant case in table 2 0.38 m2/g.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAWRENCE LA RAIA III whose telephone number is (703)756-5441. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur 6:00am-4:00pm.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571) 272-1330. 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.
LAWRENCE LA RAIA III
Examiner
Art Unit 1727
/L.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/Maria Laios/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights