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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on June 8, 2023, August 5, 2024 and December 2, 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 1-7 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 defines “secondary particles” on the third to last line, but then refers to “the secondary particle”, such being a singular/plural mismatch. For purposes of this Office action, “the secondary particle” is taken to mean “the secondary particles”. Claims 2-7 are also rejected as depending upon claim 1.
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.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (Hydrothermal preparing agglomerate LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 cathode material with submicron primary particle for alleviating microcracks, Journal of Power Sources, Vol. 477, November 1, 2020, 228701, pp. 1-9) in view of Kim (US Pub. No. 2018/0026268).
Regarding claims 1 and 6-7, Zhang teaches a cathode (positive electrode) and anode (negative electrode) including a positive electrode active material for a secondary battery using an electrolyte of LiPF6 in ethylene carbonate-ethyl methyl carbonate (a non-aqueous electrolyte) (page 2, section 2.3), wherein the positive electrode active material is LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 (such material including a lithium-transition metal composite oxide having a layered structure and containing at least Ni and Mn, with the proportions of Ni and Mn falling within the claimed ranges), with specific embodiments having Ni in the lithium layer of 3.27%, 5.59%, and 7.41% (taken to meet the claimed limitation of proportion of metal elements excluding Li and present in the Li layer of 3% to 8%) (page 3, table 1), with specific embodiment 850°C having a half-width m ≈ 0.11° and n ≈ 0.14°, resulting in m/n of about 0.79, specific embodiment 800°C having a half-width m ≈ 0.17° and n ≈ 0.2°, resulting in m/n of about 0.85, and specific embodiment 750°C having a half-width m ≈ 0.28° and n ≈ 0.34°, resulting in m/n of about 0.82 (page 4, figure 3b), all these embodiments falling within the claimed range of m/n, and Zhang teaches that the lithium-transition metal composite oxide is an agglomerate of primary particles (title), taken to read on the claimed secondary particles. Zhang does not specifically disclose the porosity inside the secondary particles. Kim teaches a positive electrode active material LiaNi1-x-y-zCoxMnyMzO2 where 0.95≤a≤1.3, 0<x≤0.33, 0≤y≤0.5, 0≤z≤0.05, and 0.33≤1-x-y-x≤0.95 (paragraphs [0076]-[0078] and [0092]) (such a formula having an embodiment of LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 identical to Zhang), as well as teaching that the active material may have an overall porosity of about 1% to about 8% (paragraph [0089]), overlapping the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a porosity as taught by Kim in the positive electrode of Zhang as a known porosity for an active material with predictable results, such being a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Kim teaches the use of an element M which can be B, Ca, Sr, Ti, Fe, Zr and/or Al in a range of 0% to 5% (paragraphs [0076]-[0078]).
Regarding claim 3, Kim teaches the use of Co in a range of from greater than 0 to 33% (paragraphs [0076]-[0078]), overlapping the claimed range.
Regarding claims 4-5, Kim teaches using a hetero-element compound between the primary particles, where the hetero element can be Zr, Al, W and/or B (paragraph [0086]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP N SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1612. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at 571-270-5545. 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.
/P.N.S/ Examiner, Art Unit 1749 January 22, 2026
/KATELYN W SMITH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749