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 .
This action is responsive to the amendment filed on January 29, 2026.
Claims 15-27 are pending. Claims 15-25 are withdrawn.
Claim 26 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun et al in view of Albrecht et al.
Claim 27 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun et al in view of Albrecht et al.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 26-27 recite “mainly have a radial orientation” and “mainly randomly oriented” and it is unclear the constitutes “mainly”.
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 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun et al (WO Patent 2018/101806) in view of Albrecht et al (US Patent Application 2017/0033358).
To further advance the prosecution of this invention, Yun et al (US Patent Application 2020/0083530) which is an English equivalent of (WO Patent 2018/101806) will be used in this rejection.
Regarding claim 26, Yun et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Yun et al nickel based active material precursor for a lithium battery comprising a core and shell (Abstract). Yun et al further teaches Yun et al further teaches the average particle diameter of the secondary particles of the nickel based active material is 2-18µm (Paragraph 68). Yun et al further teaches core particles may have an irregular arrangement (Paragraph 24). Yun et al further teaches the shell particles have a radial arrangement (Paragraph 27, Claim 1). Yun et al further teaches the nickel based active material precursor having the formula: Ni1-x-y-zCoxMnyMz(OH)2, wherein M can be B, Mg, Ca, Sr, Ba, Ti, V, Cr, Fe, Cu, Zr (Paragraphs 30-31. Yun et al further teaches the core occupies an area of 65-85% from the center based on a total length from the center to the surface (which satisfies a ratio of secondary particle diameter to core diameter ranging from 1.17-1.53 and overlaps the instantly claimed range) (Paragraph 22). However, Yun et al fails to specifically disclose the span and form factor of the secondary particles.
In the same field of endeavor, Albrecht et al teaches metal hydroxide particles as a precursor for the preparation of a cathode material for lithium batteries (Abstract). Albrecht et al further teaches mixed metal hydroxides can be prepared in both spherical or nonspherical particle shape (Paragraph 94). Albrecht et al further teaches the shape factor (form factor) of a spherical shape are greater than 0.7 (Paragraph 95). Albrecht et al further teaches the shape factor of the particles is a measure of the sphericity of the particles (Paragraph 96). Albrecht et al further teaches the mixed metal hydroxide powders have a standardized width of particle size distribution D90-D10/D50 (span) of less than 1.2 (Paragraph 101).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a span of less than 1.2 and form factor greater from 0.3-0.6 in Yun et al in view of Albrecht et al because it is known from Albrecht et al that adjusting and controlling the process conditions of producing the hydroxide particles controls the shape and particle size distribution of the hydroxide particles. Furthermore, Albrecht et al teaches less than 1.2 as a standardized width of particle size distribution D90-D10/D50 (span). Furthermore, although Albrecht et al teaches spherical (shape factor closest to 1 as the preferred shape), Albrecht et al also teaches nonspherical shapes which would include shape factors outside of less than 0.7 or greater than 1. Likewise, Yun et al teaches plate shaped, disc shaped and parallelepiped shaped (Paragraph 24). In addition, changing the shape is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape of the claimed subject matter is significant, see In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP 2144.04 IV. B.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun et al (WO Patent 2018/101806) in view of Albrecht et al (US Patent Application 2017/0033358).
To further advance the prosecution of this invention, Yun et al (US Patent Application 2020/0083530) which is an English equivalent of (WO Patent 2018/101806) will be used in this rejection.
Regarding claim 27, Yun et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Yun et al nickel based active material precursor for a lithium battery comprising a core and shell (Abstract). Yun et al further teaches Yun et al further teaches the average particle diameter of the secondary particles of the nickel based active material is 2-18µm (Paragraph 68). Yun et al further teaches core particles may have an irregular arrangement (Paragraph 24). Yun et al further teaches the shell particles have a radial arrangement (Paragraph 27, Claim 1). Yun et al further teaches the nickel based active material precursor having the formula: Ni1-x-y-zCoxMnyMz(OH)2, wherein M can be B, Mg, Ca, Sr, Ba, Ti, V, Cr, Fe, Cu, Zr (Paragraphs 30-31. Yun et al further teaches the core occupies an area of 65-85% from the center based on a total length from the center to the surface (which satisfies a ratio of secondary particle diameter to core diameter ranging from 1.17-1.53 and overlaps the instantly claimed range) (Paragraph 22). However, Yun et al fails to specifically disclose the span and form factor of the secondary particles.
In the same field of endeavor, Albrecht et al teaches metal hydroxide particles as a precursor for the preparation of a cathode material for lithium batteries (Abstract). Albrecht et al further teaches mixed metal hydroxides can be prepared in both spherical or nonspherical particle shape (Paragraph 94). Albrecht et al further teaches the shape factor (form factor) of a spherical shape are greater than 0.7 (Paragraph 95). Albrecht et al further teaches the shape factor of the particles is a measure of the sphericity of the particles (Paragraph 96). Albrecht et al further teaches the mixed metal hydroxide powders have a standardized width of particle size distribution D90-D10/D50 (span) of less than 1.2 (Paragraph 101).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a span of less than 1.2 and form factor greater than 0.7, which overlaps the instantly claimed ranges, in Yun et al in view of Albrecht et al because it is known from Albrecht et al that adjusting and controlling the process conditions of producing the hydroxide particles controls the shape and particle size distribution of the hydroxide particles. Furthermore, Albrecht et al teaches less than 1.2 as a standardized width of particle size distribution D90-D10/D50 (span). In addition, changing the shape is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape of the claimed subject matter is significant, see In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP 2144.04 IV. B. A prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976; In re Woodruff; 919 F.2d 1575,16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 29, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the 112(b) rejection, the Examiner respectfully disagrees that a person of ordinary skill would appreciate that “mainly” is equivalent to “predominantly”; The term “mainly” is a relative term without a specifically understood range.
With respect to the obviousness rejection over Yun et al in view of Albrecht et al, Applicant argues that Albrecht et al is concerned with a different technical problem and solution compared to Yun et al. Applicant further argues that the ranges in Albrecht et al are extremely broad and do not show how to influence the width of the particle size distribution and the experiments do not give any suggestions regarding form factors. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above argument because the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Likewise, a reference is not limited to the working examples, see In re Fracalossi, 215 USPQ 569 (CCPA 1982). Furthermore, Albrecht et al teaches
As recited in the previous office action, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a span of less than 1.2 and form factor greater from 0.3-0.6 in Yun et al in view of Albrecht et al because it is known from Albrecht et al that adjusting and controlling the process conditions of producing the hydroxide particles controls the shape and particle size distribution of the hydroxide particles. Furthermore, Albrecht et al teaches less than 1.2 as a standardized width of particle size distribution D90-D10/D50 (span). Furthermore, although Albrecht et al teaches spherical (shape factor closest to 1 as the preferred shape), Albrecht et al also teaches nonspherical shapes which would include shape factors outside of less than 0.7 or greater than 1. Likewise, Yun et al teaches plate shaped, disc shaped and parallelepiped shaped (Paragraph 24). In addition, changing the shape is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape of the claimed subject matter is significant, see In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP 2144.04 IV. B. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a span of less than 1.2 and form factor greater than 0.7, which overlaps the instantly claimed ranges, in Yun et al in view of Albrecht et al because it is known from Albrecht et al that adjusting and controlling the process conditions of producing the hydroxide particles controls the shape and particle size distribution of the hydroxide particles. Furthermore, Albrecht et al teaches less than 1.2 as a standardized width of particle size distribution D90-D10/D50 (span). In addition, changing the shape is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape of the claimed subject matter is significant, see In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP 2144.04 IV. B. A prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976; In re Woodruff; 919 F.2d 1575,16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05(I).
The rejection is maintained absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results.
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 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 TANISHA DIGGS whose telephone number is (571)270-7730. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Tuesday and Friday, 9:00AM-5:30PM.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at (571) 272-2817. 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.
/TANISHA DIGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761 March 6, 2026