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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 1/26/2026 does not place the application in condition for allowance.
In view of the amendment to claims 1 and 13, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 of claims 1-2, 4-5 and 13-15 has been withdrawn.
In view of the cancellation of claim 3, the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 3 has been withdrawn.
New analysis follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argues Degura does not disclose any equation combining D50 and BET, however Degura does disclose both D50 values and BET values with ranges for each which when combined meet the limitations of the claimed relationship in formula B of claim 1.
In response to applicant's argument that Degura does not improve cycle characterizes and cycle retention rate by modification of the BET surface area, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Applicant also argues Degura does not teach Mn “is essential” as presented in the newly amended claim 1 however Degura directs to a small list of optional elements including Mn and further directs toward a specific example containing Mn as described in the rejection of claim 1 below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. In particular, claim 13 contains all the limitation of claim 2 and does not add further limitations not already present in claim 1 upon which claim 2 and 13 depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-2, 4-5 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Degura et. al. (WO2020116649 as cited in the IDS, reference made to US20220033275A1 as English translation).
Regarding claim 1, Degura discloses a precursor for a lithium secondary battery positive electrode active material, comprising at least Ni and an element M,
wherein the element M is one or more of Co, Zr, Al, Ti, Mn, Ga, and W (¶[0121]) and a specific example containing Mn is also disclosed (¶[0125]),
when the precursor for the lithium secondary battery positive electrode active material is measured with a laser diffraction type particle size distribution measuring instrument and all in an obtained cumulative particle size distribution curve is set to 100%, a value of D60/D10 that is a ratio between a particle diameter D60(µm) at which a cumulative volume from a small particle side becomes 60% and a particle diameter D10 (µm) at which the cumulative volume from the small particle side becomes 10% is 2.0 or less (see Table 3 where the described ratio is less than 2 for D90/10 which inherently leads to a D60/D10 also being less than 2 since D60 is a value between D50 and D90), and
a BET specific surface area S is 2-80 m2/g (¶[0017]) and a D50 is 10-30 µm.
such that the formula (B) is satisfied within this range, 0.027≤6/(D 50 ×S)≤0.035 g/cm3 (B)
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). MPEP §2144.05.
Regarding claim 2 ad 13, Degura discloses the precursor for a lithium secondary battery positive electrode active material of claim 1,
wherein a composition formula (A) is satisfied by Formula A of Degura,
Ni1-x-yCoxMyOz(OH)2-α in the composition formula (A) where 0≤x≤0.45, 0≤y≤0.45, 0≤x+y≤0.9, 0≤z≤3, −0.5≤α≤2, and , and M is Zr, Al, Ti, Mn, Ga, and W (¶[0040]-[0041]).
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). MPEP §2144.05.
Regarding claim 4, Degura discloses the precursor for a lithium secondary battery positive electrode active material of claim 1, wherein a ratio D10/D50 between the D10 (μm) and a particle diameter D50 (μm) at which the cumulative volume from the small particle side becomes 50% when all in the cumulative particle size distribution curve is set to 100% is 0.55 or more, in this case the calculated value for Example 4 is 0.8 (see values in Table 3)..
Regarding claim 5, Degura discloses the precursor for a lithium secondary battery positive electrode active material of claim 1, wherein the BET specific surface area is 2-80 m2/g (¶[0017]).
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). MPEP §2144.05.
Regarding claim 14, Degura discloses the precursor for a lithium secondary battery positive electrode active material of claim 2, wherein a ratio D10/D50 between the D10 (μm) and a particle diameter D50 (μm) at which the cumulative volume from the small particle side becomes 50% when all in the cumulative particle size distribution curve is set to 100% is 0.55 or more, in this case Example 4 is 0.8 (see values in Table 3)..
Regarding claim 15, Degura discloses the precursor for a lithium secondary battery positive electrode active material of claim 2, wherein the BET specific surface area is 2-80 m2/g (¶[0017]).
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). MPEP §2144.05.
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 KAREN J. ARMSTRONG whose telephone number is (703)756-1243. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 am-6 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, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
/K.J.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1726
/JEFFREY T BARTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1726 24 March 2026