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 .
Summary
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments submitted May 1, 2026 have been entered into the file. Currently, claims 10-13 are new and claims 8-9 are withdrawn from consideration, resulting in claims 1-7 and 10-13 pending for examination.
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 1-7, 10, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn (US 2022/0093913 A1) in view of Furuichi (US 2018/0047977 A1) and Kaneda (US 2022/0285676 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 5, Example 3 of Ahn teaches a positive electrode active material (positive active material, Ahn [98]) comprising a single particle (small particle diameter monolith particles, Ahn [101]) and an aggregated particle formed of primary particles aggregated to each other (large particle diameter secondary particles, Ahn [98]), wherein a mass ratio between the single particle and the aggregated particle is from 20:80 to 60:40 (Ahn [98]).
Example 3 of Ahn does not teach the single particle including a boron-containing compound or a tungsten-containing compound in a surface thereof.
Ahn teaches that the single particle is a compound represented by Chemical Formula 2 and that boron (B) and tungsten (W) are suitable elements to be included (Q2, Ahn [17-19]).
Furuichi teaches a positive electrode active material particle wherein the surface includes a tungsten-containing compound in order to “reduce the positive electrode resistance of a battery and improve output characteristics” (Furuichi [23]). Furuichi further teaches that this compound “has high lithium ion conductivity and has an effect of promoting the movement of lithium ions” and when it is on the particle surface it leads to the formation of Li conduction paths at the interface with the electrolyte “so that the reaction resistance of the positive electrode active material is reduce to improve output characteristics” (Furuichi [47]).
Since Ahn teaches that W is a suitable element to be including in the single particle and Furuichi teaches that a W-containing compound in a surface of a positive electrode active material particle can reduce positive electrode resistance and improve output characteristics, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a tungsten-containing compound, as taught by Furuichi, to the surface of the single particle of Ahn in order to reduce positive electrode resistance and improve output characteristics.
Ahn is silent to the sphere degree of the single particle.
Kaneda teaches a positive electrode active material for lithium ion batteries (Kaneda claim 1) comprising a single particle and an aggregated particle formed of primary particles (Kaneda claim 1), as taught by Ahn (Ahn Example 3 , Ahn [98]), wherein the sphere degree of the particles in the positive electrode active material is 0.93 to 1.00 (degree of circularity, Kaneda [61-63]).
Since Ahn and Kaneda both teach positive electrode active material for use in lithium ion batteries, Ahn is silent to the sphere degree, and Kaneda teaches that it is desirable for positive electrode active material particles to have a sphere degree of 0.93 to 1.00, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the positive electrode active material of Ahn having single particles with a sphere degree within the range taught by Kaneda, thus being with the claimed range of 0.91 or more, in order to obtain a positive electrode active material suitable for use in lithium ion batteries.
Ahn is silent to the fluidity index of the positive electrode active material.
It is reasonable to presume that the fluidity index being 3.25 or more (claim 1) and from 3.25 to 8.0 (claim 5) is inherent to Ahn in view of Furuichi and Kaneda. Support for said presumption is found in that Ahn in view of Furuichi and Kaneda and the instant specification both disclose a positive electrode active material (Ahn Example 3; instant claim 1), an aggregated particle formed of primary particles aggregated to each other (Ahn [90-92]; instant claim 1), and a single particle including a tungsten-containing compound in a surface (Ahn in view of Furuichi, described above; instant claim 1). Ahn and the instant disclosure both further disclose the primary particles being 100 to 200 nm (Ahn [92]; instant specification pg. 4 line 16 “from 0.1 µm to 0.2 µm”) and a mass ratio between the single particle and the aggregated particle being 20:80 (Ahn Example 3 [98]; instant claim 1). Ahn further discloses the single particle being 4 µm (Ahn [93]), which is within the range disclosed by the instant specification (“more preferably from 1 µm to 5 µm” instant specification pg. 4 line 3).
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claim 2, Ahn in view of Furuichi and Kaneda teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Ahn further teaches the single particle including a compound containing nickel, cobalt, and manganese and having a ratio of nickel to metallic elements except lithium of 60 mol% or more (Example 3 uses Synthesis Example 3, Ahn [96]). Ahn teaches the aggregate particle including nickel and cobalt and having a ratio of nickel to metallic elements except lithium of 70 mol% or more (Example 3 uses Synthesis Example 1, Ahn [92]). Example 3 of Ahn does not teach the aggregated particle including Mn.
Ahn teaches that the aggregated particle comprises a compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 and that it is suitable for the aggregated particle to include manganese (Q may be at least one element selected from the list provided in Ahn [16]). Ahn further teaches that the positive electrode active materials disclosed are used in positive electrodes and rechargeable lithium batteries (Ahn [6-7]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an aggregated particle including Mn in the positive electrode active material of Ahn in order to achieve the predictable result of a positive electrode active material suitable for use in positive electrodes for rechargeable lithium batteries.
Regarding claim 3, Ahn in view of Furuichi and Kaneda teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Furuichi further teaches the tungsten-containing compound being lithium tungstate (Furuichi [193]).
Regarding claim 4, Ahn in view of Furuichi and Kaneda teaches all features of claims 1 and 2, as described above. Furuichi further teaches the tungsten-containing compound being lithium tungstate (Furuichi [193]).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Ahn in view of Furuichi and Kaneda teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Ahn further teaches a positive electrode comprising a positive electrode active material layer including the positive electrode active material according to claim 1 (Ahn [98]) and a base material (current collector, Ahn [98]) and a lithium ion battery comprising the positive electrode according to claim 6 (Ahn [98]).
Regarding claim 10, Ahn in view of Furuichi and Kaneda teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Claim 10 does not affirmatively require the boron-containing compound; therefore, modified Ahn reads on claim 10.
Regarding claim 12, Ahn in view of Furuichi and Kaneda teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Claim 12 does not affirmatively require the boron-containing compound; therefore, modified Ahn reads on claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, Ahn in view of Furuichi and Kaneda teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Modified Ahn further teaches only the single particle having the tungsten-containing compound on the surface (aggregated particle is LiNi0.94 Co0.05 Al0.01 O2 (Ahn [92]) and the single particles include the tungsten-containing compound, as described above for claim 1).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn in view of Furuichi and Kaneda, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Cho (US 20140099545 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Ahn in view of Furuichi and Kandea teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Modified Ahn is silent to a content of the tungsten-containing compound included in the surface of the single particle relative to a mass of the single particle.
Cho teaches a tungsten-containing coating on lithium metal oxide particles where a content of the tungsten-containing compound is 0.1 to 1 mass % relative to the mass of the lithium metal oxide in order to achieve improved anti-corrosion characteristics of the positive current collector (Cho [0050]).
Since modified Ahn is silent to the content of the tungsten-containing compound and Cho teaches that 0.1 to 1 mass % is suitable, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fabricate the single particle of modified Ahn to have 0.1 to 1 mass% of the tungsten-containing compound in order to achieve improved anti-corrosion characteristics of the positive current collector.
Response to Arguments
Response – Specification Objections
The objection to the specification due to language of the abstract is overcome by applicant’s amendments to the abstract in the response received on May 1, 2026. The objection to the specification is withdrawn.
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments filed May 1, 2026 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
On page 7 of the response, Applicant appears to allege that Furuichi does not teach coating a single particle.
This argument is not persuasive. Furuichi teaches the benefits of adding a tungsten layer on a lithium-metal composite oxide particle that is used as a positive electrode active material, as described above. The single particles in modified Ahn are lithium-metal composite oxide particles (Ahn [93]).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
On page 8 of the response, Applicant appears to allege that Kaneda does not teach the sphere degree of a single particle.
This argument is not persuasive. Kaneda teaches the circularity of a lithium-metal composite oxide particle that is used as a positive electrode active material being 0.93 to 1.00, as described above. The single particles in modified Ahn are lithium-metal composite oxide particles (Ahn [93]).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
On page 9 of the response, Applicant appears to allege that the fluidity index is not inherent or obvious and that the inherency rejection used in the Non-Final Rejection “due to the mass ratio is a mere conclusory statement, which is not supported by the disclosure in any of the applied art of record”.
This argument is not persuasive. The inherency reasoning used in the Non-Final Rejection did not solely rely on the mass ratio, as alleged by Applicant. Rather, Ahn in view of Furuichi and Kaneda and the instant specification both disclose a positive electrode active material (Ahn Example 3; instant claim 1), an aggregated particle formed of primary particles aggregated to each other (Ahn [90-92]; instant claim 1), and a single particle including a tungsten-containing compound in a surface (Ahn in view of Furuichi, described above; instant claim 1). Ahn and the instant disclosure both further disclose the primary particles being 100 to 200 nm (Ahn [92]; instant specification pg. 4 line 16 “from 0.1 µm to 0.2 µm”) and a mass ratio between the single particle and the aggregated particle being 20:80 (Ahn Example 3 [98]; instant claim 1). Ahn further discloses the single particle being 4 µm (Ahn [93]), which is within the range disclosed by the instant specification (“more preferably from 1 µm to 5 µm” instant specification pg. 4 line 3) and modified Ahn teaches the single particle having a sphere degree of 0.91 or more, as described above.
It is noted that the instant specification states that the fluidity index can be adjusted to be within the claimed range by “selecting the types of the single particle and the aggregated particle, the sphere degree of the single particle, the average particle size and the mixing ratio of the single particle and the aggregated particle, and the like, and adjusting the mixing conditions” (instant specification pg. 7).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kintsu (US 2021/0296638 A1): Kintsu appears to disclose a positive electrode active material comprising single particles and aggregated particles (abstract, [8]).
Takahashi (US 2022/0367852 A1): Takahashi appears to disclose a positive electrode active material comprising single particles and aggregated particles (claim 1).
Jang (US 12,300,807 B2): appears to disclose a positive electrode active material comprising aggregated particles and single particles, wherein the particles are nickel-based positive active materials (abstract).
Kageura (US 2021/0098776 A1): appears to disclose a positive electrode active material comprising single particles and aggregated particles (claim 1, claim 6, Example 1).
Kuroda (US 2021/0013508 A1): appears to disclose a positive electrode active material comprising aggregated particles and single particles (abstract, claim 1).
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 JULIA S CASERTO whose telephone number is (571)272-5114. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 5 pm ET.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/J.S.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights