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 April 2, 2026 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 § 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. It is noted that claim 1 was amended to remove the word “each”, but this does not cure the singular/plural mismatch. It is suggested that the phrase “a secondary particle” be changed to “each of the secondary particles”, and that “the secondary particle” be changed to “each of the secondary particles”.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (Cobalt-Free Nickel Rich Layered Oxide Cathodes for Lithium-Ion Batteries, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2013, 5, 21, 11434–11440) in view of Mitsumoto (US Pub. No. 2017/0288215), Kim (US Pub. No. 2018/0026268) and Itou (US Pub. No. 2009/0029253).
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Sun 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 and ethyl methyl carbonate (a non-aqueous electrolyte) (page 11435, section 2.3), wherein the positive electrode active material is LiNi0.9Mn0.1O2 or LiNi0.8Mn0.2O2 (such materials 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, and no Co, falling within the claimed range of Co), with specific embodiments having Ni in the lithium layer of 5.1%, 6.7%, and 7.7% (taken to meet the claimed limitation of proportion of metal elements excluding Li and present in the Li layer of 3% to 8%) (pages 11437 and 11439, tables 2 and 3), and Sun teaches that the lithium-transition metal composite oxide is spherical secondary aggregates (page 11435, 2nd column, last paragraph), taken to read on the claimed secondary particles. Sun does not specifically disclose the ratio m/n of half-width of diffraction peaks of a (003) plane to a (110) plane. Mitsumoto teaches that it is preferable to have a ratio of crystallite size of the (003) plane to the (110) plane of higher than 1.0 and lower than 2.5 as calculated by Scherrer’s equation (paragraph [0065]), Scherrer’s equation being (D = K λ / β cos(θ), where D is the crystallite size and β is the full width at half maximum (FWHM) of the peak), accordingly the claimed ratio of half-widths is inverse to the crystallite size ratio of Mitsumoto, therefore the half-width ratio is from 0.4 (1/2.5) to 1 (1/1), overlapping the claimed range of m/n. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use and m/n ratio as taught by Mitsumoto in the positive electrode of Sun in order to have the expansion and contraction in storage and release of Li be more isotropic and the capacity retention rate after the cycle can be maintained more (see Mitsumoto at paragraph [0066]). Sun 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-z≤0.95 (paragraphs [0076]-[0078] and [0092]) (such a formula having an embodiments very similar to Sun), 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. Itou teaches a positive electrode active material LiaNibCocMndMeOfNg where 0<a≤1.2, 0.3≤b≤0.9, 0≤c≤0.6, 0.25≤d≤0.6, and 0≤e≤0.3, 1.5≤f≤2.2, 0≤g≤0.5 (paragraphs [0037]-[0038]) (such a formula having embodiments very similar to Sun), where the porosity of the secondary particle is in a range of from 0.2 to 5% (paragraph [0044]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a porosity as taught by Kim and/or Itou in the positive electrode of Sun in order to secure a necessary expansion space during charge and discharge and to prevent increase of internal resistance (see Itou at paragraph [0044]) and/or 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]), and Itou teaches M can be Al, Ca and/or Ti, in a range of from 0% to 30% (paragraphs [0037]-[0038]), thus teaching elements within the claimed group and in an overlapping range.
Regarding claim 3, Kim teaches the use of Co in a range of from greater than 0 to 33% (paragraphs [0076]-[0078]), and Itou teaches the use of Co in a range of from 0 to 60%, thus both are 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]).
Regarding claim 6, 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-z≤0.95, where M can be selected from the group consisting of B, Mg, Ca, Sr, Ba, Ti, V, Cr, Fe, Cu, Zr and Al (paragraphs [0076]-[0078] and [0092]), and Itou teaches a positive electrode active material LiaNibCocMndMeOfNg where 0<a≤1.2, 0.3≤b≤0.9, 0≤c≤0.6, 0.25≤d≤0.6, and 0≤e≤0.3, 1.5≤f≤2.2, 0≤g≤0.5, where M can be Al, Ca and/or Ti (paragraphs [0037]-[0038]), such formulas reading on the claimed general formula.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments and arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As was set forth above, Applicant’s amended claim still has a singular/plural mismatch.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Sun.
Applicant argues that there is no indication explicitly or implicitly that the porosity taught by Kim provides benefits generally or would be specifically beneficial in Zhang. First, that Kim teaches the importance of porosity in a very similar positive electrode active material composition to that of the instant invention, and the former primary reference of Zhang and the current primary reference of Sun is taken to implicitly provide evidence of the benefits of a porosity range. Further, Itou has been added which specifically sets forth the benefits of having an upper and a lower bound to the porosity range in another very similar positive electrode active material composition to that of the instant invention and Sun.
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 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 July 10, 2026
/KATELYN W SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights