DETAILED ACTION
Final
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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 11/26/2025 is entered and acknowledged by the Examiner. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 1-14 are currently pending in the instant application.
The rejection of claims 1-14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 2018/0261842 A1) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 2018/0261842 A1) in view of US 2019/0123347 A1 (hereinafter Kim).
Park is relied upon as set forth in the previous Office action mailed on 08/27/2025.
Park discloses a method of preparing the positive electrode active material including a step of forming a sintered product (sintered cake) in the presence of a boron-based sintering additive including a lithium tetraborate (Li2B4O7) and follow by a step of washing the product (See [0014], [0055], and [0086]). It’s noted that the claimed lithium borate compound described by Applicant includes Li2B4O7 (lithium tetraborate) (See [0071] of the present specification). Therefore, the boron-based sintering additive of Park fulfills the claimed lithium borate compound. As such, the boron-based sintering additive of Park will be removed in the washing process as acknowledged by the Applicant(See [0071] of the present specification).
Park also recognizes a criticality of having a positive electrode active material within an average particle size D50 of 2-20 um and certain particle size distribution in order to improve high-temperature stability and capacity characteristic of a battery and exhibit a high rolling density of 3.0 g/cc or higher to improve a high-temperature storage characteristic (See [0002], [0047] to [0049], and [0051] to [0054]).
Park failed to disclose a method of preparing the positive electrode active material including a step of grinding a sintered cake (sintered positive electrode product) wherein the sintered cake has a cake strength of 600N or less as recited in amended claim 1.
However, Kim discloses a method of preparing the positive electrode active material including a step of forming a sintered product (sintered cake) and follow by crushing (grinding) the sintered cake in order to obtain a non-agglomerated (NMC) positive electrode active powder (See [0122], [0125], [0129] and [0134]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a skilled artisan at the time the invention was filed to modify the method of Park by crushing (grinding) the sintered cake in order to obtain a non-agglomerated positive electrode active powder as suggested by Kim.
With regards to the sintered product (sintered cake) having a strength of 600N or less, the cake strength is a property that stem from the composition of the positive electrode active material. Since Park discloses a positive electrode active containing all the claimed components within the claimed proportions, the sintered cake (sintered product) of Park is expected to have the same or substantially same property as claimed, i.e., cake strength of 600N or less. It has been held that “[p]roducts of identical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2112.01 II. "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 view of the foregoing, the above claims have failed to patentably distinguish over the applied art.
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 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) above have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection has addressed matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 KHANH TUAN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8082. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM EST.
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.
/KHANH T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761