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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-6, 8, and 9 are pending.
Claims 1-4 and 9 are withdrawn.
Claim 7 is cancelled.
Status of Amendment
The amendment filed on March 19th, 2026 has been fully considered but does not place the application in condition for allowance.
Status of Objections and Rejections Pending Since the Office Action of January 9th, 2026
The 102 rejections of claims 5, 6, and 8 are withdrawn in view of the Applicant's amendment.
The 103 rejection of claim 7 is moot because claim 7 has been cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 5, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itou (US 2009/0029253 A1) and further in view of Toya (US 2018/0347069 A1) and Yamauchi (US 2016/0308207 A1).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Itou teaches a positive electrode active material comprising lithium-nickel composite oxide particles [0033] which have a porosity in a range of 0.2% to 5% [0044][, overlapping with the claimed range of 1% or less (as required by claim 6). 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). See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Although Itou teaches that the active material particles have an average particle size in a range of 0.05 – 20 µm [0047], they fail to teach a range of a D50 average particle size. Toya is analogous art to Itou because both discuss positive active materials for use in lithium-ion batteries. Toya teaches that their average particle size may be a D50 value [0094], and they continue to teach that the particle size may be between 3 and 7 µm [0087]. When the size of the particles is less than 3 µm, the battery capacity per volume decreases. On the other hand, when D50 size is greater than 7 µm, the resistance in the cathode increases [0164]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to ensure that the D50 value of Itou’s particles remains between 3 – 7 µm to ensure that the battery capacity per volume does not decrease and that the resistance in the cathode does not increase. Furthermore, this range of 3 µm – 7 µm overlaps with the claimed range of 3 µm to 6 µm. 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). See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Itou is also silent on a particle size distribution index where the quotient of (D90 – D10) / (volume average particle size) is between 0.4 and 0.5. Yamauchi is analogous art to Itou because both discuss positive active materials used in lithium-ion batteries. Yamauchi teaches that when the value of (D90 – D10) /MV (where MV means “volume average particle diameter) is more than 0.6, the “problem of the deterioration of the cycling property of the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery using the positive electrode” or the “problem of short circuit” arises due to the increase of coarse particles [0111]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to ensure that the particle size distribution index of Itou’s particles is less than 0.6 to prevent the possibility of the aforementioned problems arising during normal battery operations. Furthermore, the range of “0.6 or less” [0110] overlaps with the claimed range of 0.4 – 0.5. 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). See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 8, Itou discloses a positive active material with the general formula LiaNibCocMndMeOfNg [0037] where the values of the subscripts overlap with the subscripts of the claimed positive active material that that contains of LiaNi1-x-y-z-MnyMz [0038]. Detailed analysis is given below:
“a”, the subscript of Li, has a range of 0 < a ≤ 1.2 which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.95 ≤ a ≤ 1.10.
“d”, the subscript of Mn, has a range of 0.25 ≤ d ≤ 0.6 which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.1 ≤ x ≤ 0.5.
“c”, the subscript of Co, has a range of 0 ≤ c ≤ 0.6 which overlaps with the claimed range of 0 ≤ y ≤ 1/3.
“e”, the subscript of M, an additional metal which may represent Mg, Ca, Al, Ti, V, or C, has a range of 0 ≤ e ≤ 0.3, which overlaps with the claimed range of 0 ≤ z ≤ 0.1.
“b”, the subscript of Ni, has a range of 0.3 ≤ b ≤ 0.9, which would encompass the value of “1 – x – y – z” as long as “d” ≤ “1 – d – c – e”. One such example of such values would include the following:
“d” = 0.33
“c” = 0.33
“e” = 0
“b” = “1 – d – c – e” = 0.34, which is greater than “d” = 0.33
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 5, 6, and 8 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Mori (US 2012/0276454 A1) discusses nickel composite hydroxide particles with an average particle diameter nearly identical to the claimed range (3 µm – 7 µm) as well as a particle size distribution range that overlaps with the claimed range (0.55 or less) [0032]. This reference, however, notably fails to teach the porosity of the material.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 RYAN K BLACKWELL-RUDASILL whose telephone number is (571)270-0563. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
/R.B.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/NIKI BAKHTIARI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights