Office Action Predictor
Application No. 18/179,365

Positive Electrode and Battery

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Mar 07, 2023
Examiner
PEIRIS, TELGE SHAVINDA
Art Unit
1724
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Prime Planet Energy & Solutions, INC.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant

Examiner Intelligence

0%
Career Allow Rate
0 granted / 0 resolved
Without
With
+0.0%
Interview Lift
avg trend
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
8 pending
8
Total Applications
career history

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
60.0%
+20.0% vs TC avg
§102
20.0%
-20.0% vs TC avg
§112
20.0%
-20.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data

Office Action

§103
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 . Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 1817965, filed on 3-10-2022. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3-7-2023 was filed on the mailing date 3-7-2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. 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. Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LU CN114391189A, hereinafter LU, and further in view of LEE EP-4254554-A1, hereinafter LEE. Regarding Claim 1, LU teaches a positive electrode [0025] comprising: a positive electrode active material layer [0026]; and a positive electrode base material (second positive active material; [0026]), wherein the positive electrode active material layer includes a positive electrode active material [0026], the positive electrode active material includes a layered metal oxide [0026], a ratio of nickel to metallic elements except lithium in the layered metal oxide is 70 mol % or more [0027]. LU does not teach a part of the positive electrode active material present near a surface of the positive electrode active material layer closer to the positive electrode base material has a crystallite diameter that is 200 Å to 500 Å (20 nm to 50nm) greater than a part of the positive electrode nickel containing active material present near a surface of the positive electrode active material layer opposite to the positive electrode base material. However, LEE teaches a positive electrode present near a surface of the positive electrode active material layer closer to the positive electrode base material active material [0018] has a difference between the average crystallite size of the core portion (positive electrode nickel containing active material layer) and the average crystallite size of the shell portion (positive electrode base material) in a range of 20 nm to 150 nm [0040]. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation the core is considered “near” a surface opposite the base material in that it is nearer than the shell closer to the base material. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use LEE’s known crystallite size difference in LU’s electrode to improve life characteristics while maintaining initial capacity characteristics and output characteristics when used in a battery [0040]. Regarding Claim 2, LU teaches the layered metal oxide is represented by a formula: Li1-a NixMe1-x O2--- [0030] Where: “a” satisfies a relationship of -0.3≤a≤0.3 [0032] “X” satisfies a relationship of 0.7≤x≤1.0 [0033] Me stands for at least one selected from the group consisting of Co, Mn, Al, Zr, B, Mg, Fe, Cu, Zn, Sn, Na, K, Ba, Sr, Ca, W, Mo, Nb, Ti, Si, V, Cr, and Ge [0034-0035] Regarding Claim 3, LU teaches the positive electrode active material layer includes a first positive electrode active material layer and a second positive electrode active material layer, and the second positive electrode active material layer is positioned close (relative) to the positive electrode base material as compared to the first positive electrode active material layer [0021]. Regarding Claim 4 LU teaches the positive electrode according to claim 3, wherein a thickness of the second positive electrode active material layer is defined as T2, a thickness of the first positive electrode active material layer is defined as T1, and a ratio of T1 to T2 (T1/T2) is from 0.33 to 3.0 [0016]. Regarding Claim 5, LU teaches a battery comprising the positive electrode [0017]. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TELGE S PEIRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6591. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 8:00am - 5:00pm 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, Miriam Stagg can be reached on (571)270-5256. 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. /TELGE SHAVINDA PEIRIS/Examiner, Art Unit 1724 /MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 07, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 23, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Feb 26, 2026
Interview Requested
Mar 11, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Mar 11, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Apr 01, 2026
Response Filed

AI Strategy Recommendation

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

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
Grant Probability
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 0 resolved cases by this examiner