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
Applicants’ election of Group I (claims 1-6) in the reply filed on January 20, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicants did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph [0069], 6th line, replace “110-a” with “110” before “first” to be in agreement with Figure 1.
In paragraph [0069], 6th line, replace “120-a” with “120” before “second” to be in agreement with Figure 1.
In paragraph [00133], last line, add “agent” after “conductive”.
Appropriate correction is required.
The use of the term “Ketjen black”, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application (see paragraphs [00131] and [00146] of the specification). The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term. Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
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 1-6 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the first core portion" in the 6th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the first core portion" with "the core portion" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "a core portion" in the 5th line of claim 1. Since claims 2-6 depend from claim 1, these claims are rejected for the same reason.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yun et al. (US 2020/0119351 A1), cited in the Information Disclosure Statement dated May 19, 2023.
Regarding independent claim 1, Yun et al. disclose a nickel-based positive electrode active material precursor (see abstract; paragraphs [0027], [0028], [0030], [0033]-[0039], [0047]-[0049], [0052], [0056]-[0064]; claims 9-11; and Figures 1A and 1B), in which the nickel-based positive electrode active material precursor comprises the following features:
a spherical secondary particle (100) that is an aggregate of primary particles (40), wherein the spherical secondary particle (100) comprises
a core portion (10);
a first shell portion (named as “intermediate layer” (20) in Yun et al.) formed on the core portion (10); and
a second shell portion (named as “shell layer” (30) in Yun et al.) formed on the first shell portion (20),
wherein the core portion (10) is composed of randomly oriented (irregularly arranged) primary particles (see paragraph [0030]; and Figure 1B), the first shell portion (20) is composed of primary particles (40) having a (001) plane oriented in a direction from a center of the secondary particle (100) toward a surface thereof, including that the primary particles (40) comprise plate particles defining major axes (41) that include both parallel and angled surfaces between respective surfaces of the plate particles (see paragraphs [0028] and [0058]; and Figure 1B), and the second shell portion (30) is composed of randomly oriented primary particles radially arranged around the first shell portion (20) – see paragraph [0034] and Figure 1B.
Regarding claim 5, Yun et al. disclose that the first shell portion (intermediate layer (20)) has a thickness between 1 µm and 9 µm (see paragraph [0049]).
Regarding claim 6, Yun et al. disclose that the second shell portion (shell layer (30)) has a thickness between 0.5 µm and 2 µm (see paragraph [0048]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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.
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 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Yun et al. (US 2020/0119351 A1).
Regarding claims 2-4, Yun et al. disclose the features of independent claim 1 above, including that the positive electrode active material precursor is nickel-based and has respective hydroxide groups (per Formula (1) of Yun et al. in paragraphs [0060] and [0061]; and claims 9-11), but do not explicitly disclose the claimed formulas of the elemental components with respect to each of the core portion (10), the first shell portion (20), and the second shell portion (30).
However, Yun et al. disclose the following Formula (1) (see claim 9 of Yun et al.) of the nickel-based positive electrode active material precursor as follows:
Ni1-x-y-zCoxMnyMz(OH)2-αXα (Formula 1)
As applicable to claim 2, Yun et al. disclose that above Formula (1) would include [Nia1Cob1Mnc1M1d1M2e1](OH)2, as claimed, since a1 would exceed 0.6 in the nickel-based precursor (see paragraph [0061]), b1 and c1 exist in amounts (greater than 0 but less than 0.4) due to the presence of both Co and Mn in Formula 1 of Yun et al., and neither M1d1 nor M2e1 is required due to the claimed 0 ≤ d1 ≤ 0.1 and 0 ≤ e1 ≤ 0.1 (although M2 could include any one of the claimed metals Ti, V, or W – see paragraph [0061]), such that a1 + b1 + c1 + d1 + e1 = 1, and α would be 0 due to the absence of X and presence of only (OH)2.
As applicable to claim 3, Yun et al. disclose that above Formula (1) would include [Nia2Cob2Mnc2M1d2](OH)2, as claimed, since a2 would exceed 0.6 in the nickel-based precursor (see paragraph [0061]), b2 and c2 exist in amounts (greater than 0 but less than 0.4) due to the presence of both Co and Mn in Formula 1 of Yun et al., and M1d2 is not required due to the claimed 0 ≤ d2 ≤ 0.1 (although M1 could include Zr – see paragraph [0061], such that a2 + b2 + c2 + d2 = 1, and α would be 0 due to the absence of X and presence of only (OH)2.
As applicable to claim 4, Yun et al. disclose that above Formula (1) would include [Nia3Cob3Mnc3M1d3M3f3](OH)2, as claimed, since a3 would exceed 0.6 in the nickel-based precursor (see paragraph [0061]), b3 and c3 exist in amounts (greater than 0 but less than 0.4) due to the presence of both Co and Mn in Formula 1 of Yun et al., M1d3 is not required due to the claimed 0 ≤ d3 ≤ 0.1, and M3 could include any one of the claimed metals Ti, V, or W – see paragraph [0061], such that a3 + b3 + c3 + d3 + f3 = 1, and α would be 0 due to the absence of X and presence of only (OH)2.
Since Yun et al. disclose the formula (Formula 1) that meets the elemental compositions disclosed in each of applicants’ claims 2-4 as the nickel-based positive electrode active material precursor, but only lack explicit specificity that the same or different elemental compositions would be used in each of the core portion (10), the first shell portion (20), and the second shell portion (30), one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the suitability of these elemental compositions for any one, two, or all three portions/layers (10,20,30) of the spherical secondary particle (100) would be determined by routine experimentation with a reasonable expectation of success of further reducing stress and potential cracking due to volume change during charging and discharging of the nickel-based positive electrode active material via improved structural stability of respective portions/layers of the nickel-based positive electrode active material precursor (see paragraphs [0034] and [0047] of Yun et al.).
With regard to the ranges of elemental compositions to meet the parameters of each of Formulas 1, 2, and 3 (in claims 2, 3, and 4, respectively), these ranges would be anticipated and/or obvious since these ranges would be readily contemplated by one of ordinary skill in the art. In this instance, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the obviousness of the ranges in view of Yun et al., as set forth in MPEP 2144.05. “In the case where 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). Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (1980).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN P KERNS whose telephone number is (571)272-1178. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Walker can be reached at (571)272-3458. 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.
/KEVIN P KERNS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735 March 29, 2025
Prosecution Insights