Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/176,669

METHOD OF PREPARING POSITIVE ELECTRODE ACTIVE MATERIAL FOR LITHIUM SECONDARY BATTERY

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Mar 01, 2023
Examiner
AMPONSAH, OSEI K
Art Unit
1752
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Ecopro Bm Co. Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 5m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allow Rate
488 granted / 680 resolved
+6.8% vs TC avg
Strong +34% interview lift
Without
With
+34.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
68 currently pending
Career history
748
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
66.1%
+26.1% vs TC avg
§102
19.0%
-21.0% vs TC avg
§112
9.1%
-30.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 680 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 Response to Amendment Upon consideration, the previous rejection of record was withdrawn in light of amendments. However new rejection is applied to the amended claims. All changes made in the rejection are necessitated by the amendment. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3, and 5-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. 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. 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. Claim(s) 1, 3, and 5-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2016/0336595 hereinafter Choi in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2020/0161651 hereinafter Sun. Regarding Claims 1 and 3, Choi teaches a method of preparing a positive electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery (paragraphs 45-50), the method comprising: forming a lithium complex compound by forming a first mixture by mixing a nickel composite precursor, a lithium compound and TiO2 (i.e., first additive) and thermal-treating at 890o C; forming a second mixture by mixing the lithium complex compound and Al(OH)3 (i.e., second additive) and thermal-treating at 400o C; and acquiring a positive electrode active material for the lithium secondary battery (see Example 1, paragraphs 86-87). Choi does not specifically disclose that the first additive [TiO2] is mixed to be 0.5 to 1.0 mol% with respect to the nickel composite precursor. However, Sun teaches a cathode active material (positive electrode active material) and a method for preparing the positive electrode active material (paragraphs 74-75), wherein the method comprises including an additive [TiO2] in an amount of 0.5 mol% with respect to the nickel composite precursor (paragraph 101, see Example 1-1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include such additive in the method for preparing the positive electrode active material before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Sun discloses that such configuration can improve charging and discharging capacity (paragraph 20). Because the combination teaches a method of preparing a positive electrode active material which is substantially identical to that of the claims and as such the claimed properties or functions (i.e., BET specific surface area) of the positive electrode active material are presumed to be inherent (see MPEP § 2112.01). Regarding Claim 5, Choi teaches a method wherein the temperature for the first thermal treatment is 700 to 1050° C (paragraph 47). Regarding Claims 6-7, the combination teaches a method wherein the mixing ratio of the Al(OH)3 (i.e., second additive) to the first lithium composite oxide is 0.5 mol% (paragraphs 74-75, 101 of Sun). Regrading Claims 8-9, Choi teaches a method of preparing a positive electrode active material which is substantially identical to that of the claims and as such the claimed properties or functions (i.e., BET specific surface area) of the positive electrode active material are presumed to be inherent (see MPEP § 2112.01). Regarding Claim 10, Choi teaches a method wherein the temperature for the second thermal treatment is 300 to 500° C (paragraph 49). Regarding Claim 11, Choi teaches a method wherein the lithium composite oxide is represented by LiNiCoM1M2O2 (paragraphs 37-38), wherein M1 and M2 are at least one of Al, Mn, Ti, Zr. Regarding Claims 12-13, Choi teaches a method wherein the lithium complex compound is formed by mixing a lithium source with M1 (dopant) containing raw material and a M2 (dopant) containing raw material (paragraph 34), and thermal-treating the mixture at 700 to 1050° C (paragraph 47). In addition, Choi teaches reacting the lithium composite oxide with a washing solution (see Comparative Examples). Regarding Claims 14-15, Choi teaches a method of preparing the positive electrode active material for a positive electrode in a lithium secondary battery (paragraphs 45-50). 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 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 01, 2023
Application Filed
Aug 31, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Dec 04, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 18, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12586819
Non-Aqueous Electrolyte and Lithium Secondary Battery Including the Same
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12580223
STABILIZED SOLID GARNET ELECTROLYTE AND METHODS THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12573615
All-Solid-State Battery and Method of Manufacturing the Same
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12573717
MICROPOROUS MEMBRANES, SEPARATORS, LITHIUM BATTERIES, AND RELATED METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12567648
EXPLOSIVE ENVIRONMENT NEUTRALIZATION IN CHEMICAL ENERGY STORAGE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
72%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+34.3%)
3y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 680 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month