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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-6, in the reply filed on November 20, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 7-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on November 20, 2025.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on March 13, 2023 and June 11, 2024 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, Equation (1) provides a range for the number of primary particles/an average particle diameter D50 of the secondary particle, however, no units are provided for the range. Based on the provided range of particle diameter given in µm, the range is interpreted as greater than or equal to 4 µm-1 and less than or equal to 21 µm-1 for the purposes of examination.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1, 3-5, and by dependency claims 2-6, 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 3, lines 15-17 of claim 1 and lines 1-3 of claim 3 define the number of primary particles as the number of primary particles measured in a cross-sectional SEM image of the positive electrode active material. This limitation is indefinite as there is no indication of the area captured in the SEM image, or for what the cross-sectional image encompasses. Paragraphs [0072]-[0075] of the instant specification repeat that the number of primary particles is measured in a cross-sectional SEM image, however, do not give further clarification on what the SEM image includes or what the area of SEM image is. Given the lack of clarity, the SEM image is interpreted to include any portion of the positive electrode active material at any magnification, such that the desired number of primary particles is captured. For the purposes of examination, the number of primary particles measured in a cross-sectional SEM image is interpreted as being selected from a cross-sectional SEM image selected by one skilled in the art capable of adjusting the area, magnification, and sample location.
Regarding claim 1, lines 17-20 define the average particle diameter D50 as the particle diameter at which a maximum peak of area cumulative particle size distribution of the positive electrode active material. This limitation is indefinite as a cumulative particle size distribution represents an integral and does not contain a maximum peak. For the purposes of examination, the average particle diameter D50 is interpreted using the conventional definition: that the average particle diameter D50 is the diameter at 50% in the volume distribution, such that 50% of particles have a diameter larger than the average and 50% of particles have a diameter smaller than the average, based on volume.
Regarding claims 4-5, lines 6-9 of claims 4 and 5 define P0 as the intensity of a maximum peak appeared in an area cumulative particle size distribution graph of the positive electrode active material and P1 as an intensity of a peak appeared in a region corresponding to a particle diameter of the P0 peak in an area cumulative particle size distribution graph measured after pressuring the positive electrode active material to 9 tons. These limitations are indefinite for the same reasons listed above, that the cumulative particle size distribution graph represents an integral and does not contain individual peaks. Further, the definition of P1 is indefinite as the pressure is defined simply by the force applied, without providing an area over which the force is applied. Paragraphs [0079]-[0082] repeat the definitions provided in the claim, but do not give further guidance on the area over which the force is applied, leaving the area over which is applied open, making the limitation indefinite.
Regarding claims 2-6, these claims are rejected based on their dependency on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ke, et al. (US 2022/0416236 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ke teaches a cathode material represented by the chemical formula LiaNixCoyMn1-x-yWbMcO2, wherein 1.00≤a≤1.16, 0.7<x<1, 0<y<0.3, 0.002<b+c<0.01, and M is selected from one or more of the group consisting of Zr, Mg, Ti, Al, Si, La, Ba, Sr, Nb, Cr, Mo, Ca, Y, In, Sn, and F (¶ [0011], Ln. 1-6). Specifically, in Example 1, the cathode material is represented by the formula Li1.0068Ni0.8Co0.1Mn0.1W0.0008Al0.006O2, meeting the limitations of claimed Formula 1 wherein M1 is represented by Mn and Al, M2 is represented by W, a=1.0068, x=0.8, y=0.1, z=0.106, and w=0.0008 (¶ [0053], Ln. 15-16). Further, Ke teaches that the secondary particles of Example 1 had a particle size range of 2.4 µm to 5.5 µm (¶ [0054], Ln. 15-16). While it is acknowledged that an average particle size D50 is not expressly taught for the secondary particles of the positive electrode active material of Example 1, as the range of particle sizes ranges from 2.4 µm to 5.5 µm, the average particle size D50 necessarily falls within that range, which is within the claimed range of 1 µm to 8 µm. Additionally, it is acknowledged that a number of primary particles measured in a cross-sectional SEM image of the positive electrode active material is not provided by Ke, and therefore the ratio of the number of primary particles/an average particle diameter D50 of the secondary particle is not expressly taught by the reference. However, Figure 10 shows an SEM image of the secondary particles of Example 1, wherein individual primary particles are visible. One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to select an SEM image of the secondary particles of Example 1 which includes 22 to 50 primary particles. As the range of particle sizes for the secondary particles of Example 1 ranges from 2.4 µm to 5.5 µm, and therefore the average particle size D50 falls within that range, an SEM image containing 22 to 50 primary particles would result in a ratio of the number of primary particles/average particle size D50 of 4 to 20.8, within the claimed range of 4 to 21.
Regarding claim 2, Ke teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Further, the cathode material of Example 1, represented by the formula Li1.0068Ni0.8Co0.1Mn0.1W0.0008Al0.006O2, meets the limitations of claimed Formula 1-1 wherein M2 is represented by W, a=1.0068, x=0.8, y=0.1, z1=0.1, z2=0.006, and w=0.0008 (¶ [0053], Ln. 15-16).
Regarding claim 3, Ke teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. As noted above, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to select an SEM image of the secondary particles of Example 1 which includes 22 to 50 primary particles, within the claimed range of 20 to 100.
Regarding claim 6, Ke teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches that W is doped to form a W coating layer on the cathode material (¶ [0008], Ln. 8-9). Specifically, in Example 1 Ke teaches that W is coated on the surface of the secondary particles, as lithium tungstate is easily formed and distributed on the surface of the secondary particles (¶ [0054], Ln. 20-23, 26-31).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ke, et al. (US 2022/0416236 A1).
Regarding claims 4-5, Ke teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Ke further teaches that it is well known to control particle size by adjusting sintering temperature, and that the W-containing precursor additionally controls the particle size, such that the secondary particles are formed with small primary particles and perfect crystal form (¶ [0017], Ln. 1-12). Ke does not expressly teach that the positive electrode active material has a particle size change rate of -5 to 4.5, or a particle size change amount of 0 to 12.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the cathode material of Ke to have a particle size change rate of -5 to 4.5 and a particle size change amount of 0 to 12. As stated in paragraph [0083] of the instant specification, the claimed ranges for both the particle size change rate and particle size change amount indicate that breakage due to rolling during the preparation of the positive electrode is suppressed. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a positive electrode active material with a small particle size and perfect crystal form would be less prone to breaking during a rolling process. As Ke teaches controlling the particle size of the cathode material by adjusting the sintering temperature and using a W-containing precursor, such that the secondary particles are formed with small primary particles and perfect crystal form, Ke teaches forming a cathode material that is less prone to breaking. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize this process, suppressing as much breaking as possible, and resulting in a cathode material with a particle size change rate of -5 to 4.5 and a particle size change amount of 0 to 12.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH J JACOBSON whose telephone number is (703)756-1647. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291.
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.
/SARAH J JACOBSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1785
/MARK RUTHKOSKY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1785