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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07-02-2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06-18-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the cited prior art (Shon) does not teach the primary particle having a smaller crystalline size than the secondary particle (i.e., first active material particles having a smaller crystalline size than the second active material particles). Applicant further argues that the cited prior art teaches primary particle and a secondary particle having the same crystal and same crystalline sizes. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In this case, Shon (US 2015/0243978) teaches a positive electrode active material that comprises lithium transition metal oxide (paragraphs 55, 57-63), wherein the positive electrode active material comprises secondary particles formed by an agglomeration of primary particles (i.e., by coagulation), and wherein the primary particles have a polycrystalline structure comprising crystal grains of the lithium transition metal oxide (paragraph 65 teaches different positive electrode active material particles). Shon further teaches that the diameter of the crystal grains (i.e., crystalline size) of the positive electrode active material may be selected by controlling the heat-treatment conditions and that the lower the heat-treating temperature, the smaller the diameter of the crystal grains (paragraph 69). And as such, the primary particles have a smaller average particle diameter than the secondary particles (paragraphs 67 and 74 teach that the smaller average particle diameter material provides smaller diameter of the crystal grains [i.e., different diameter of the crystal grains in the first material and second material]).
Based on the disclosure by Shon, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form a first lithium transition metal oxide having different (or smaller) crystalline size than the second lithium transition metal oxide before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Shon discloses that such configuration can improve capacity, high-rate charging/discharging performance, and initial efficiency of the battery (paragraph 70).
Applicants’ arguments are still not persuasive for reasons made herein and of record.
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.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2018/0241036 hereinafter Jo in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2015/0243978 hereinafter Shon.
Regarding Claim 1, Jo teaches a positive electrode active material for a secondary battery (paragraphs 21-22), the positive electrode active material comprises a first lithium-nickel oxide particle having an average particle size (D50) of more than 8 µm to 20 µm or less, and a second lithium-nickel oxide particle having an average particle size (D50) of 8 µm or less, and wherein the first lithium-nickel oxide particle has a particle strength of 100 MPa to 250 MPa and the second lithium-nickel oxide particle has a particle strength of 50 MPa to 100 MPa (paragraphs 23, 26-28).
Jo does not specifically disclose that the first lithium transition metal oxide has smaller crystalline size than the second lithium transition metal oxide.
However, Shon teaches a positive electrode active material for a lithium battery (paragraph 55), the positive electrode active material comprises secondary particles formed by an agglomeration of primary particles (i.e., by coagulation), and wherein the primary particles have a polycrystalline structure comprising crystal grains of the lithium transition metal oxide (paragraph 65). Shon further teaches that the diameter of the crystal grains (i.e., crystalline size) of the positive electrode active material may be selected by controlling the heat-treatment conditions and that the lower the heat-treating temperature, the smaller the diameter of the crystal grains (paragraph 69).
Shon teaches that the primary particles have a smaller average particle diameter than the secondary particles (paragraphs 67, 74 teach that the smaller average particle diameter material provide smaller diameter of the crystal grains [i.e., different diameter of the crystal grains in the first material and second material]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form a first lithium transition metal oxide having different (or smaller) crystalline size than the second lithium transition metal oxide before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Shon discloses that such configuration can improve capacity, high-rate charging/discharging performance, and initial efficiency of the battery (paragraph 70).
Regarding Claim 2, Jo teaches that the first lithium transition metal oxide and the second lithium transition metal oxide each independently have a composition represented by LiNiCoMnO2 (paragraphs 26-27).
Regarding Claim 3, Jo teaches that a weight ratio of the first lithium transition metal oxide to the second lithium transition metal oxide is 8:2 (paragraph 77).
Regarding Claim 4, Jo teaches that a difference in the particle strength between the first lithium transition metal oxide and the second lithium transition metal oxide is in a range of 50 MPa to 200 MPa (see Table 1, Examples 1-4).
Regarding Claims 5 and 8-9, the combination teaches that the diameter of the crystal grains (i.e., crystalline size) of the positive electrode active material may be selected by controlling the heat-treatment conditions and that the lower the heat-treating temperature, the smaller the diameter of the crystal grains (paragraph 69 of Shon). In addition, paragraphs 67, 74 of Shon teach that the smaller average particle diameter material provide smaller diameter of the crystal grains [i.e., different diameter of the crystal grains in the first material and second material] and the first material having a diameter of crystal grain of less than about 40 nm (paragraph 71 of Shon).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form a first lithium transition metal oxide having different (or smaller) crystalline size than the second lithium transition metal oxide before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Shon discloses that such configuration can improve capacity, high-rate charging/discharging performance, and initial efficiency of the battery (paragraph 70). In addition, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976; In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir.1990). Thus, it would have been well within the purview of a skilled artisan to tune or tailor the different crystalline sizes to form the battery with improved characteristics as described above.
Regarding Claims 6-7, Jon teaches that the first lithium-nickel oxide particle has a particle strength of 100 MPa to 250 MPa and the second lithium-nickel oxide particle has a particle strength of 50 MPa to 100 MPa (paragraph 23). In addition, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976; In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir.1990).
Regarding Claims 10-11, the combination teaches a lithium secondary battery comprising a positive electrode that includes the positive electrode active material as described above (paragraphs 21-22 of Jon).
Regarding Claims 12-15, Jo teaches that the positive electrode active material comprises a first lithium-nickel oxide particle having an average particle size (D50) of more than 8 µm to 20 µm or less, and a second lithium-nickel oxide particle having an average particle size (D50) of 8 µm or less (paragraph 23, see Table 1, Examples 1-4). In addition, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976; In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir.1990).
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 OSEI K AMPONSAH whose telephone number is (571)270-3446. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 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, NICHOLAS A SMITH can be reached at (571)272-8760. 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.
/OSEI K AMPONSAH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights