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 .
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 1-7, 9, and 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurita et al. (US 2017/0187031), cited in the Information Disclosure Statement dated March 31, 2026.
Regarding independent claim 1 and claim 9, Kurita et al. disclose a lithium metal composite oxide with a layered structure (see abstract; paragraphs [0005]-[0017], [0020]-[0032], [0039]-[0056], and [0080]-[0087]; Examples; and Figures 1A and 1B), in which the lithium metal composite oxide comprises the following:
at least Li, Ni, Co, Mn, and an element X1, wherein the element X1 includes at least one of Mg, Al, and Zr (see abstract; paragraphs [0014], [0022], [0029], and [0030]; and Examples), and represented by a composition formula (I) as follows:
Li[Lix(Ni(1-y-z-w)CoyMnzX1w)1-x]O2 (I), and in the formula (I), X1 represents one or more elements selected from the broadly claimed group of elements, including Mg, Al, and Zr (see paragraphs [0014], [0022], [0029], and [0030]; and Examples), and
-0.1 ≤ x ≤ 0.2, 0 ≤ y ≤ 0.4, 0 ≤ z ≤ 0.4, 0 ≤ w ≤ 0.1, and 0 < y + z + w are satisfied (see paragraphs [0014], [0022], [0029], and [0030]; and Examples), wherein x in the composition formula (I) would also satisfy 0 < x ≤ 0.2 of applicant’s claim 9 (somewhat narrower in scope than -0.1 ≤ x ≤ 0.2 above), and wherein the composition formula (I) would also satisfy 0 < y + z + w ≤ 0.3 (somewhat narrower in scope than 0 < y + z + w);
L/D50 that is a ratio of an average primary particle diameter L to a 50% cumulative volume particle size D50 is within a range of 0.72 to 1.5, wherein L is indicated as ranging between 0.1 µm to 1 µm (see abstract; paragraphs [0039] and [0045]-[0048]; and Examples in comparing ratios between L and D50), wherein L/D50 would substantially overlap the range of 0.72 to 1.5 since calculation of L/D50 of Kurita et al. results in a range of between 0.005 and 1, and
in powder X-ray diffraction measurement using a CuKα ray (see paragraph [0082]), a crystalline diameter A calculated from a diffraction peak within a range of 2θ = 44.5 ± 1° would preferably be between 350 Å and 700 Å (see paragraph [0051]), thus covering the claimed 700 Å or less.
With regard to the ranges of the ratio of L/D50 and the limit of crystalline diameter A to be any value at or below 700 Å, these ranges would be obvious since these ranges would be readily contemplated by one of ordinary skill in the art, provided the combination of ranges/values disclosed by Kurita et al. addressed above. In this instance, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the obviousness of the ranges in view of Kurita et al., as set forth in MPEP 2144.05. “In the case where 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). Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (1980).
Regarding claim 2, wherein L/D10 that is a ratio of the average primary particle diameter L to a 10% cumulative volume particle size D10 would include values that fall within the claimed range of 0.6 to 3 (see abstract and Examples in comparing ratios between L and D10). With regard to the ranges of the ratio of L/D10, these ranges would be obvious since these ranges would be readily contemplated by one of ordinary skill in the art, provided the combination of ranges/values disclosed by Kurita et al. addressed above. In this instance, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the obviousness of the ranges in view of Kurita et al., as set forth in MPEP 2144.05. “In the case where 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). Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (1980).
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Kurita et al. disclose that the average primary particle diameter L is 0.1 µm to 1 µm, sharing an endpoint with the claimed range of 1 µm to 10 µm (see abstract; paragraphs [0039] and [0045]-[0048]; and Examples). With regard to the ranges of the average primary particle diameter L, these ranges would be obvious since these ranges would be readily contemplated by one of ordinary skill in the art, provided the combination of ranges/values disclosed by Kurita et al. addressed above. In this instance, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the obviousness of the ranges in view of Kurita et al., as set forth in MPEP 2144.05. “In the case where 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). Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (1980).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, a portion of the Examples of the 50% cumulative volume particle size D50 would be within the range of 2 to 25 µm (see abstract; paragraphs [0039] and [0045]-[0048]; and Examples). With regard to the ranges of the 50% cumulative volume particle size D50, these ranges would be obvious since these ranges would be readily contemplated by one of ordinary skill in the art, provided the combination of ranges/values disclosed by Kurita et al. addressed above. In this instance, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the obviousness of the ranges in view of Kurita et al., as set forth in MPEP 2144.05. “In the case where 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). Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (1980).
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Kurita et al. disclose a BET specific surface area of 0.1 to 2.0 m2/g (see paragraph [0054]), substantially overlapping with the claimed range of 0.3 to 1.9 m2/g. In addition, this range would be anticipated and/or obvious since this range would be readily contemplated by one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the above ranges of parameters disclosed by Kurita et al. In this instance, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the obviousness of the ranges in view of Kurita et al., as set forth in MPEP 2144.05. “In the case where 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). Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (1980).
Regarding claims 6, 7, 17, and 18, Kurita et al. disclose that, in the powder X-ray diffraction measurement using a CuKα ray, when a crystalline diameter calculated from a diffraction peak within a range of 2θ = 18.5 ± 1° is indicated by B to be preferably 1300 Å (see paragraph [0049]), corresponding with the broadly claimed limit of any value at or below 1300 Å. In addition, B/A that is a ratio of the crystalline diameter B to the crystalline diameter A would also be within a range of 1.3 to 1.78, such that this range of B/A would be anticipated and/or obvious since this range would be readily contemplated by one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the above ranges of parameters disclosed by Kurita et al. In this instance, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the obviousness of the ranges in view of Kurita et al., as set forth in MPEP 2144.05. “In the case where 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). Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (1980).
Regarding claims 11-13, Kurita et al. suggest a lithium secondary battery (10) with a positive electrode (2) that includes the positive electrode active material having the lithium metal composite oxide according to claim 1 (see paragraphs [0014], [0022], [0029], [0030], and [0082]-[0084]; and Figures 1A and 1B).
Response to Arguments
The examiner acknowledges the applicant’s after final response received by the USPTO on May 20, 2026. Also, an Information Disclosure Statement dated March 31, 2026 has been considered and initialed, and a copy is provided with this Office Action. Since applicant’s arguments addressing the prior 35 USC 103 rejection are persuasive, the prior art rejection is withdrawn. However, since this new ground of rejection is made after an amendment was filed by applicant on January 16, 2026 after the non-final Office Action mailed September 17, 2025, as well as that applicant’s submission of an Information Disclosure Statement dated March 31, 2026 prompted the new ground of rejection after the final rejection mailed February 20, 2026, this Office Action is again made final. Claims 1-7, 9, and 11-18 remain under consideration in the application.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-7, 9, and 11-18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection includes a new reference to Kurita et al. (US 2017/0187031), and thus does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on March 31, 2026 prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 609.04(b). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 KEVIN P KERNS whose telephone number is (571)272-1178. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Walker can be reached at (571)272-3458. 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.
/KEVIN P KERNS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735 May 30, 2026
Prosecution Insights