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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 16-20 and 22-31 are currently pending
Claims 16, 22-23, and 28 are amended
Claim 21 has been cancelled
New claim 31 has been added
Status of Amendments
The amendment filed 19 December 2025 has been fully considered, but does not place the application in condition for allowance.
This action has been made final.
Status of Objections and Rejections of the Office Action from 1 October 2025
The 112 rejections are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
The 103 rejections over Kumakura, over Kumakura in view of Uchikawa, and over Kumakura in view of Kim are maintained in view of Applicant’s amendment.
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.
Claims 16, 20-23, and 26-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumakura et al. (WO 2019123306 A1, using US 20200381727 A1 for ease of citation), hereinafter Kumakura.
Regarding claims 16, 22, and 31, Kumakura teaches an active cathode material, in this case a positive electrode material [0001], for a lithium-ion cell, in this case a secondary battery [0001], the active cathode material comprising:
a mixture of particles having particle sizes distributed according to a bimodal particle size distribution [0147] with a first modal value (M1) of 10-20 μm [0080], which overlaps with the claimed 7-14 μm of claim 22, being greater than a second modal value (M2) of 2-8 μm [0080], which overlaps with the claimed 1-6 μm of claim 22. 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).
Kumakura further teaches that a particle size distribution of the first particles is unimodal and has a modal value equal to the first modal value (M1), in this case a size distribution with a span less than 1.0, as also required by claim 31, and an average particle size of 10-20 μm [0093],
a particle size distribution of the second particles is unimodal and has a modal value equal to the second modal value (M2), in this case a size distribution with a span less than 1.5, as also required by claim 31, and an average particle size of 2-8 μm [0119], and
the second particles have a mechanical strength higher than a mechanical strength of the first particles, in this case the first particles, compound A, have a greater absolute value of ID10 than the second particles, compound B, (Table 1-4) which means the first particles will break up more under pressure [0056], indicating the second particles have a higher mechanical strength.
Kumakura does not specify that the mixture of particles comprising first particles and second particles can intercalate lithium or are configured to intercalate lithium. However, Kumakura teaches using lithium foil as a negative electrode [0074]. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the taught positive electrode active material to intercalate lithium. Further, Kumakura teaches the first powder comprising Li1+a(NixM’’yCozEd)1-aO2, wherein -0.03≤a≤0.10, 0.30≤x≤0.92, 0.05≤y≤0.40, 0.05≤z≤0.4, 0≤d≤0.05 and M’’ is either one or both of Mn or Al, and E is a dopant different from M’’ [0116], and the second powder comprising Li1+b(Nix’N’’y’Coz’E’d’)1-bO2, wherein -0.03≤b≤0.10, 0.30≤x’≤0.92, 0.05≤y’≤0.40, 0.05≤z’≤0.40, 0≤d’≤0.05, N’’ is either one or both of Mn or Al, and E’ is a dopant different from N’’ [0118]. Both powders fall within the parameters of the instant specification where the core of each powder may comprise Li1(NixCoyMnzAlr)O2 [Instant 0024]. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the powders taught by Kumakura to intercalate lithium.
Kumakura is also silent as to the first particles having a particle size greater than a predefined first particle size range limit (G1) and the second particles having a particle size smaller than a predefined second particle size range limit (G2) where the second predefined particle size range limit (G2) is lower than the predefined first particle size range limit (G1) and both particle size range limits are respectively calculated using the full width at half maximum (FWHM) and the modal values of each powder. However, Kumakura teaches compound A having a span less than 1.0 and an average particle size of 10-20 μm [0093] and compound B having a span less than 1.5 and an average particle size of 2-8 μm [0119]. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect a combination of compounds to exist wherein, if G1 were calculated by subtracting half of the first FWHM from M1 and G2 were calculated by adding half of the second FWHM to M2, then G2 would be lower than G1, the first particles would have a particle size greater than G1, and the second particles would have a particle size smaller than G2. Examiner notes that this would not be the case if the peaks conjoined and the FWHMs touched or overlapped through the entire range of M1 and M2 values. For example, Fig. 1-2 of Kumakura, pictured below with added notation for ease, shows a particle size distribution for the precursor particles of EX1-1 where EX1-1-A1 has a D50 of 13.8 μm and a span of 0.87 and EX1-1-B1 has a D50 of 6.8 μm and a span of 0.91 (Table 1-3). In this instance the peaks conjoin and G2>G1.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (FWHM2)][AltContent: textbox (FWHM1)][AltContent: textbox (G2)][AltContent: textbox (G1)][AltContent: textbox (M2)][AltContent: textbox (M1)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image1.png
286
404
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, EX1-1-A and EX1-1-B would not conjoin in the same manner. EX1-1-A and EX1-1-B are not graphed, but EX1-1-A has a D50 of 12.5 μm and a span of 0.87 and EX1-1-B has a D50 of 3.5 μm and a span of 1.14 (Table 1-4). Comparing these values with those graphed in Figure 1-2, the curve for EX1-1-A would not be too different from the curve for EX1-1-A1, but the curve for EX1-1-B would be further to the left, due to the smaller D50, and slightly wider, due to the larger span, than the curve for EX1-1-B1, as depicted in a modified figure below.
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (G1)]
PNG
media_image2.png
156
119
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
156
119
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (G2)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (M2)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (FWHM2)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (FWHM1)][AltContent: textbox (M1)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: ][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image1.png
286
404
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As can be seen in the modified figure, a combination of M1 and M2 values within their specified ranges is taught that would be expected to produce a mixture of particles, wherein G2 is lower than G1, the first particles would have a particle size greater than G1, and the second particles would have a particle size smaller than G2. 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 20, Kumakura teaches the active cathode material according to claim 16, wherein the first particles have a first porosity and the second particles have a second porosity and the first porosity is greater than the second porosity. In this case, Kumakura teaches the first powder comprising particles that are 26% pores [0144] and the second powder comprising particles that have a smooth surface, low open porosity, and no internal porosity [0152]. Therefore, the first porosity is greater than the second porosity.
Regarding claim 23, Kumakura teaches a process for producing an active cathode material comprising:
providing a first powder, in this case Compound A [0093], comprising first particles having a particle size distributed according to a first particle size distribution, the first particles intercalating lithium or being configured to intercalate lithium, as discussed regarding claim 16 above, wherein a median value D50 of the first particle size distribution is in a range between 7 µm and 14 µm and a span of the first particle size distribution is less than 1, in this case a distribution in a range between 10 and 20 µm and a span of less than 1.0 [0093]. 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).
Kumakura further teaches providing a second powder, in this case compound B [0093], comprising second particles having a particle size distributed according to a second particle size distribution, the second particles intercalating lithium or being configured to intercalate lithium, as discussed regarding claim 16 above, wherein a median value D50 of the second particle size distribution is in a range between 1 µm and 6 µm, in this case 2 to 8 µm [0093], a span of the second particle size distribution is less than 1, in this case less than 1.5 [0119]. 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). Kumakura further teaches the second particles having a mechanical strength higher than a mechanical strength of the first particles, as discussed regarding claim 16 above; and
mixing the first powder and the second powder to give a mixture having a bimodal particle distribution, in this case Compound C [0125].
As discussed above regarding claim 16, Kumakura is silent as to the first particles having a particle size greater than a predefined first particle size range limit (G1) and the second particles having a particle size smaller than a predefined second particle size range limit (G2) where the second predefined particle size range limit (G2) is lower than the predefined first particle size range limit (G1) and both particle size range limits are respectively calculated using the full width at half maximum (FWHM) and the modal values of each powder. However, Kumakura teaches a combination of M1 and M2 values, as depicted in the modified figure above, that would be expected to produce a mixture of particles, wherein G2 is lower than G1, the first particles have a particle size greater than G1, and the second particles have a particle size smaller than G2. 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 26, Kumakura teaches the process according to claim 23 wherein the first particles have a first porosity and the second particles have a second porosity and the first porosity is greater than the second porosity. In this case, Kumakura teaches the first powder comprising particles that are 26% pores [0144] and the second powder comprising particles that have a smooth surface, low open porosity, and no internal porosity [0152]. Therefore, the first porosity is greater than the second porosity.
Regarding claim 27, Kumakura teaches an active cathode material, in this case a positive electrode material, produced by the process according to claim 23 [0093].
Regarding claim 28, Kumakura teaches a lithium-ion cell, in this case a pouch-type cell [0173], comprising:
A first electrode, in this case a positive electrode [0173];
a second electrode, in this case a negative electrode [0174]; and
a separator separating the first electrode and the second electrode [0175], wherein
the first electrode has a higher potential than the second electrode, in this case seen by the first electrode being positive and the second electrode being negative, and
the first electrode has a binder-bound, pressed active cathode material according to claim 16, in this case a slurry containing the positive electrode material and a binder in a solvent is spread, dried, and pressed using calendaring [0173].
Regarding claim 29, Kumakura teaches a battery comprising a lithium-ion cell according to claim 28 [0175].
Regarding claim 30, Kumakura teaches a vehicle comprising a battery according to claim 29 [0001].
Claims 17-18 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumakura in view of Uchikawa (JP 2019032941 A), hereinafter Uchikawa.
Kumakura teaches the active cathode material according to claim 16 and the process according to claim 23, wherein the second particles have a core coated with a surface layer [0126], as required by claims 17 and 24, and the core intercalates lithium or is configured to intercalate lithium, as discussed regarding claim 16 above, as required by claim 17. Kumakura is silent as to the surface layer giving the second particles the mechanical strength higher than the mechanical strength of the first particles and the mechanical strength being achieved through appropriate selection of the chemical substance, thickness, or porosity of the surface layer. However, Uchikawa teaches a positive electrode active material comprising a lithium transition metal composite oxide core 11a (pg. 3, ¶ 3) and a surface layer 11b that covers the surface of the core portion designed to improve the mechanical strength of the particle (pg. 3, ¶ 1), as required by claims 17 and 24. Uchikawa further teaches the thickness of the surface layer being modified to improve the mechanical strength (pg. 5, ¶ 3), as required by claim 18.
Kumakura and Uchikawa are both considered to be equivalent to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of lithium transition metal composite oxides positive electrode active materials. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second particles of Kumakura with the surface layer of Uchikawa. Doing so would have improved the cycle characteristics, durability, solvent resistance, and oxidation resistance of the particles (pg. 3, ¶ 1).
Claims 19 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumakura in view of Kim et al (WO 2019123306 A1, using US 20200411859 A1 for ease of citation), hereinafter Kim.
Kumakura teaches the active cathode material according to claim 16 and the process according to claim 23, wherein the second particles are each doped with a dopant. In this case Kumakura teaches the second powder comprising Li1+b(Nix’N’’y’Coz’E’d’)1-bO2, wherein -0.03≤b≤0.10, 0.30≤x’≤0.92, 0.05≤y’≤0.40, 0.05≤z’≤0.40, 0≤d’≤0.05, N’’ is either one or both of Mn or Al, and E’ is a dopant different from N’’ [0118]. Kumakura is silent as to the specific dopant as well as to the dopant directly giving the second particles the mechanical strength higher than the mechanical strength of the first particles. However, Kim teaches a second powder comprising Li1+b(NixM’’yCozEd)1-bO2, wherein -0.03≤b≤0.10, 0.30≤x≤0.92, 0.05≤y≤0.40, 0.05≤z≤0.40, 0≤d≤0.05, M’’ is either one or both of Mn or Al, and E is a dopant different from M’’ [0014]. Kim further teaches that E is either one or more elements of the group consisting of Al, Ca, Si, Ga, B, Ti, Mg, W, Zr, Cr, V, S, F or N [0021].
Kumakura and Kim are both considered to be equivalent to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of bimodal lithium transition metal oxide based active cathode materials. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the dopant taught by Kim as the dopant in Kumakura. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use, in this case as a dopant, supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). This overlaps with the taught dopant in the instant specification of Al, Ti, Si, Mg, Nb, Mo, Fe, Cu, Cr, Zn [Instant 0029]. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the dopant to give the second particles the mechanical strength higher than the mechanical strength of the first particles. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 19 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant directs attention to the hypothetical nature of the initial statement in the examiner’s rejection, noting that Kumakura is silent as to particular G1 and G2 values and that the plot relied on by the examiner was constructed by the examiner and does not appear in Kumakura, but seems to disregard where the information for the modified plot came from. Examiner notes that the constructed plot is a representation of the data for EX1-1-A and EX1-1-B taught by Kumakura in Table 1-4. Formatting the data already presented by Kumakura into a corresponding plot does not constitute hindsight reasoning. Further, although Kumakura is silent as to G1 and G2 values, the G1 and G2 values would still inherently exist and could be calculated using the data already taught by Kumakura and the subsequent plot that may be produced from that data.
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 DUSTIN KENWOOD VAN KIRK whose telephone number is (703)756-4717. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm 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, 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.
/DUSTIN VAN KIRK/Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/NIKI BAKHTIARI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722