DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the April 14th, 2026 arguments and remarks (“Remarks”).
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 Amendments
In response to the amendments received in the Remarks on April 14th, 2026:
Claims 1 and 5-13 are pending in the current application. Claims 1, 5-6, 8, and 10-12 have been amended. Claims 2-4 have been cancelled.
The previous objection to the claims has been overcome in light of the amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed with the Remarks on April 14th, 2026 with respect to Claims 1 and 5-13 are acknowledged, however, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument that unexpected results occur with a positive electrode active material having doping elements Nb and Zr within the claimed ranges is not persuasive.
According to Applicant’s Tables 1 and 2, Exemplary Embodiment 11 has an Nb amount of 0.0025 mol and a Zr amount of 0.0035 mol (which fall within the claimed ranges) based on 1 mole of the total moles of nickel, cobalt, manganese, aluminum, and doping elements, while Reference Example 1 has an Nb amount of 0.005 mol (which falls outside of the claimed range) and a Zr amount of 0.0035 mol (which falls within the claimed range). Exemplary Embodiment 11, however, has a lower discharge capacity and initial efficiency than Reference Example 1. And, therefore, it is not imperative that the positive electrode active material have the doping element Nb present in an amount that falls within the claimed range.
Further, while Reference Example 3 does have an amount of Zr (0.008 mol) that falls outside of the claimed range, and has the lowest discharge capacity and initial efficiency of the Examples that comprise an amount of Zr that falls within the claimed range – the instant specification omits any examples of a positive electrode active material without Zr and/or with Zr present in an amount less than 0.002 mol. While the data does prove that it is imperative for there to not be too much Zr (i.e. exceeding the upper limit of the claimed range), there is no evidence that no Zr or less Zr than the lower limit of the claimed range would have a negative impact on the positive electrode active material/battery performance.
Thus, the present invention does not establish “the critical significance of the doping ranges of Nb and Zr,” and the overlapping ranges of Park deem the claimed ranges obvious. Based solely on this argument the rejection of record is maintained.
Applicant’s argument that Park fails to disclose the combination of doping elements Nb and Zr is not persuasive.
As Applicant stated, Park discloses a first dopant selected from a group including Zr and a second dopant selected from a group including Nb. While the specific examples as disclosed by Park do not specifically exemplify a combination of Nb and Zr, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to try each and every possible combination as disclosed by Park – including the combination of Nb and Zr.
Based solely on this argument the rejection of record is maintained.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection of record is maintained. Any modifications to the rejection are as necessitated by the amendment.
Applicant’s argument that the instant application are not taught or suggested by the claims of copending Applications 18/268,831 and 18/268,756 is not persuasive.
Copending Application 18/268,831 discloses a positive electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery, comprising: a metal oxide particle including nickel, cobalt, manganese, and aluminum; and three doping elements doped into the metal oxide particle, wherein the three doping elements are Nb, B, and Zr, the doping amount of Nb ranges from 0.00001 mole to 0.03 mol, based on 1 mole of the total of nickel, cobalt, manganese, aluminum, and doping elements; and the doping amount of the Zr is 0.001 mol to 0.007 mol, based on 1 mol of the total of nickel, cobalt, manganese, aluminum, and doping elements.
The skilled artisan would recognize that the use of the claim limitation “comprising” in both the instant and copending Application would make it true that a material comprising three elements of Nb, B, and Zr would also comprise two elements of Nb and Zr. Additionally, as stated in the argument above, the instant application fails to disclose any criticality over the claimed ranges of the amounts of doping elements Nb and Zr. And, thus, the overlapping ranges of the copending application would deem the instantly claimed ranges obvious.
The same analysis can be made for copending Application 18/268,756, wherein the positive electrode active material comprises five doping elements including Nb and Zr, and would thereby render a positive electrode active material comprising two doping elements including Nb and Zr obvious.
Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the Non-Statutory Double Patenting rejection is maintained, any modifications to the rejection are as necessitated by the amendment.
Claim Interpretation
All “wherein” clauses are given patentable weight unless otherwise noted. Please see MPEP 2111.04 regarding optional claim language.
The limitation “comprising,” as seen in at least line 2 of Claim 1, is interpreted to define parts contained within a whole. Such that a product comprising component A could also comprise additional components not defined.
Prior Art
Previously cited Park KR20200047116 (“Park”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 and 5-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park KR20200047116 (for purposes of examination, US PG Publication 2022/0037658 is cited throughout and a machine translation of KR20200047116 has been provided in a previous Office Action).
Regarding Claim 1, Park discloses a positive electrode active material for a secondary battery comprising lithium ([0009]-[0010], entire disclosure dependent upon) comprising: a lithium composite transition metal oxide including nickel, cobalt, and manganese and two or more kinds of first dopants selected from a list including zirconium (Zr) and aluminum (Al) and two or more kinds of second dopants selected from a group including niobium (Nb) ([0009]) (corresponding to claimed limitation wherein the two doping elements are Nb and Zr),
wherein a doping amount of the Nb is at most 0.015 mol (which encompasses the claimed range of 0.0001 mol to 0.0025 mol)1 (as represented by w1=0.015 in the instance where Mb is Nb) based on 1 mol of the total moles of nickel, cobalt, manganese, aluminum, and doping elements (as represented by 1= 1-(x1+y1+z1+w1)+x1+y1+z1+w1) ([0020]-[0021]), and
wherein a doping amount of the Zr is at most 0.025 mol (which encompasses the claimed range of 0.002 mol to 0.005 mol)1 (as represented by z1=0.025 in the instance where Ma is Zr) based on 1 mol of the total moles of nickel, cobalt, manganese, aluminum, and doping elements (as represented by 1= 1-(x1+y1+z1+w1)+x1+y1+z1+w1) ([0020]-[0021]).
1 In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding Claim 5, Park teaches the instantly claimed positive electrode active material according to Claim 1, and Park discloses wherein a doping amount of the Zr is greater than 0 and at most 0.025 mol (as represented by z1=0.025 in the instance where Ma is Zr) based on 1 mol of the total moles of nickel, cobalt, manganese, aluminum, and doping elements (as represented by 1= 1-(x1+y1+z1+w1)+x1+y1+z1+w1) ([0020]-[0021]) and wherein a doping amount of the Nb is greater than 0 and at most 0.015 mol (as represented by w1=0.015 in the instance where Mb is Nb) based on 1 mol of the total moles of nickel, cobalt, manganese, aluminum, and doping elements (as represented by 1= 1-(x1+y1+z1+w1)+x1+y1+z1+w1) ([0020]-[0021]).
Therefore, the skilled artisan would recognize that the active material of Park would have a doping amount of Nb and Zr that encompasses the claimed range of Equation 1 (0.3<[Zr]/[Nb]<40)1, including the instance where [Zr]/[Nb] = 0.025/0/015 = 1.67.
Regarding Claims 6-7, Park teaches the instantly claimed positive electrode active material according to Claim 1, and Park discloses wherein the positive electrode active material is represented by Formula 1: LipNi1-(x1+y1+z1+w1)Cox1Mny1Max1Mbw1O2+δ and x1 is between 0 and 0.025 (which overlaps the claimed range of 0.008 to 0.029 and encompasses the claimed range of 0.01 to 0.025)1 ([0020]-[0021]). In the instance wherein Ma is both Al and Zr and Mb is Nb, Formula 1 of park satisfies the claimed Chemical Formula 1: Lia[NixCoyMnzAlh]1-t(NbiZrj)tO2-pXp when p=0.
Regarding Claims 8-11, Park teaches the instantly claimed positive electrode active material according to Claim 1. Since the positive electrode active material of Park covers the entirety of the claimed positive electrode active material, a person having ordinary skill in the art would expect the positive electrode active material of Park to have the same properties of the claimed positive electrode active material. Including, but not limited to, initial diffusion coefficient values, grain sizes, FWHM values, and XRD patterns2.
2 Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Regarding Claim 12, Park teaches the instantly claimed positive electrode active material according to Claim 1, and Park discloses wherein the content of nickel in the metal oxide particle is 0.6 mol or more (which encompasses the claimed range of 0.8 mol or more)1, based on 1 mole of the total moles of nickel, cobalt, manganese, and aluminum ([0020]-[0023]).
Regarding Claim 13, Park discloses a lithium secondary battery ([0009]-[0011]), comprising: a positive electrode comprising the positive electrode active material as described in the rejection of Claim 1 ([0009]-[0011]); a negative electrode [0079]); and an electrolyte comprising a solvent selected from a group of materials including non-aqueous solvents ([0079]-[0088]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 5, and 8-13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-3, 5-6, and 10-15 of copending Application No. 18/268,831 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Instant Claim 1: A positive electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery, comprising a metal oxide including nickel, cobalt, manganese and aluminum; and two doping elements doped into the metal oxide particle,
wherein the two doping elements are Nb and Zr,
wherein a doping amount of the Nb is 0.0001 mol to 0.0025 mol, based on 1 mole of the total moles of nickel, cobalt, manganese, aluminum and doping elements, and
wherein a doping amount of the Zr is 0.002 mol to 0.005 mol, based on 1 mole of the total moles of nickel, cobalt, manganese, aluminum and doping elements.
Co-pending Claim 1: A positive electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery, comprising: a metal oxide particle including nickel, cobalt, manganese and aluminum; and three doping elements doped into the metal oxide particle.
Co-pending Claim 2: The positive electrode active material of claim 1, wherein: the three doping elements are Nb, B and Zr.
The term “comprising” in these claim limitations is interpreted such that the positive electrode active material comprises at least nickel, cobalt, manganese, aluminum, and two doping elements of Nb and Zr (in the instant application). And, therefore, any positive electrode active material comprising nickel, cobalt, manganese, aluminum, and three doping elements of Nb, B and Zr (in the co-pending application) must comprise at least nickel, cobalt, manganese, aluminum, and two doping elements of Nb and Zr (such as defined in the instant application) in addition to at least one additional doping element of B.
Co-pending Claim 3: The positive electrode active material of claim 2, wherein: a doping amount of the Nb is 0.00001 mol to 0.03 mol, based on 1 mol of the total of nickel, cobalt, manganese, aluminum and doping elements.
Wherein the skilled artisan would recognize that a doping amount of 0.0001 mol to 0.03 mol (co-pending application) would encompass the instantly claimed range of 0.0001 mol to 0.0025 mol. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Co-pending Claim 5: The positive electrode active material of claim 2, wherein: the doping amount of the Zr is 0.001 mol to 0.007 mol, based on 1 mol of the total of nickel, cobalt, manganese, aluminum and doping elements.
Wherein the skilled artisan would recognize that a doping amount of 0.001 mol to 0.007 mol (co-pending application) would encompass the instantly claimed range of 0.002 mol to 0.005 mol. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Instant Claim 5: The positive electrode active material of claim 2, wherein: a doping amount of the Nb and Zr satisfies the relationship of Equation 1 below. [Equation 1] 0.3<[Zr]/[Nb]<40 (In Equation 1, [Nb] and [Zr] mean the doping amount of each element based on 1 mole of the total sum of nickel, cobalt, manganese, aluminum and doping elements)
Co-pending Claim 6: The positive electrode active material of claim 2, wherein: a doping amount of the Nb and Zr satisfies the relationship of Equation 1 below. [Equation 1] 0.5<[Zr]/[Nb]<10 (In Equation 1, [Nb] and [Zr] mean the doping amount of each element based on 1 mole of the total sum of nickel, cobalt, manganese, aluminum and doping elements)
Wherein the skilled artisan would recognize that a value for Equation 1 between 0.5 and 10 (co-pending application) would fall within, and therefore anticipate the instantly claimed range of between 0.3 and 40.
Instant Claim 8: The positive electrode active material of claim 1, wherein: the initial diffusion coefficient of the positive electrode active material ranged from 7.30x10-9 m2/sec to 8.10x10-9 m2/sec.
Co-pending Claim 10: The positive electrode active material of claim 1, wherein: the initial diffusion coefficient of the positive electrode active material ranged from 7.30x10-9 m2/sec to 8.10x10-9 m2/sec.
Instant Claim 9: The positive electrode active material of claim 1, wherein: a grain size of the metal oxide particle is 900 Å to 1,550 Å.
Co-pending Claim 11: The positive electrode active material of claim 1, wherein: a grain size of the metal oxide particle is 1,000 Å to 1,560 Å.
Wherein the skilled artisan would recognize that a grain size of 1,000 Å to 1,560 Å (co-pending application) would overlap the instantly claimed range of 900 Å to 1,550 Å. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Instant Claim 10: The positive electrode active material of claim 1, wherein: a full width at half maximum (FWHM) value for (110) planes of the metal oxide particle ranges from 0.1890 to 0.2200.
Co-pending Claim 12: The positive electrode active material of claim 1, wherein: a full width at half maximum (FWHM) value for (110) plane of the metal oxide particle ranges from 0.1901 to 0.2017.
Wherein the skilled artisan would recognize that a value for the FWHM from 0.1901 to 0.2017 (co-pending application) would fall within, and therefore anticipate the instantly claimed range from 0.1890 to 0.2200.
Instant Claim 11: The positive electrode active material of claim 1, wherein: when measuring the X-ray diffraction pattern, the positive electrode active material has a 1.2300 to 1.2410 of I(003)/I(104), which is the ratio of the peak intensity of the (003) plane to the peak intensity of the (104) plane.
Co-pending Claim 13: The positive electrode active material of claim 1, wherein: when measuring the X-ray diffraction pattern, the positive electrode active material has a 1.2350 to 1.2410 of I(003)/I(104), which is the ratio of the peak intensity of the (003) plane to the peak intensity of the (104) plane.
Wherein the skilled artisan would recognize that a value for the ratio of I(003)/I(004) from 1.2350 to 1.2410 (co-pending application) would fall within, and therefore anticipate the instantly claimed range from 1.2300 to 1.2410.
Instant Claim 12: The positive electrode active material of Claim 1, wherein: the content of nickel in the metal oxide particle is 0.8 mol or more, based on 1 mol of the total of the nickel, cobalt, manganese, and aluminum.
Co-pending Claim 14: The positive electrode active material of Claim 1, wherein: the content of nickel in the metal oxide particle is 0.8 mol or more, based on 1 mol of the total of the nickel, cobalt, manganese, and aluminum.
Instant Claim 13: A lithium secondary battery, comprising: a positive electrode comprising the positive electrode active material of claim 1; a negative electrode; and a non-aqueous electrolyte.
Co-pending Claim 15: A lithium secondary battery, comprising: a positive electrode comprising the positive electrode active material of claim 1; a negative electrode; and a non-aqueous electrolyte.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 8-10, and 12-13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 11-13, and 15-16 of copending Application No. 18/268,756 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Instant Claim 1: A positive electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery, comprising a metal oxide including nickel, cobalt, manganese and aluminum; and two doping elements doped into the metal oxide particle,
wherein the two doping elements are Nb and Zr,
wherein a doping amount of the Nb is 0.0001 mol to 0.0025 mol, based on 1 mole of the total moles of nickel, cobalt, manganese, aluminum and doping elements, and
wherein a doping amount of the Zr is 0.002 mol to 0.005 mol, based on 1 mole of the total moles of nickel, cobalt, manganese, aluminum and doping elements.
Co-pending Claim 1: A positive electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery, comprising: a metal oxide particle including nickel, cobalt, manganese and aluminum; and five doping elements doped into the metal oxide particle.
Co-pending Claim 2: The positive electrode active material of claim 1, wherein: the three doping elements are Al, Nb, B, Zr and Ti.
The term “comprising” in these claim limitations is interpreted such that the positive electrode active material comprises at least nickel, cobalt, manganese, aluminum, and two doping elements of Nb and Zr (in the instant application). And, therefore, any positive electrode active material comprising nickel, cobalt, manganese, aluminum, and five doping elements of Al, Nb, B, Zr and Ti (in the co-pending application) must comprise at least nickel, cobalt, manganese, aluminum, and two doping elements of Nb and Zr (such as defined in the instant application) in addition to at least three additional doping elements of Al, B, and Ti.
Co-pending Claim 4: The positive electrode active material of claim 2, wherein: the doping amount of the Nb is 0.00025 mol to 0.005 mol, based on 1 mol of the total of nickel, cobalt, manganese, aluminum and doping elements.
Wherein the skilled artisan would recognize that a doping amount of 0.00025 mol to 0.005 mol (co-pending application) would overlap the instantly claimed range of 0.0001 mol to 0.0025 mol. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Co-pending Claim 6: The positive electrode active material of claim 2, wherein: the doping amount of the Zr is 0.001 mol to 0.007 mol, based on 1 mol of the total of nickel, cobalt, manganese, aluminum and doping elements.
Wherein the skilled artisan would recognize that a doping amount of 0.001 mol to 0.007 mol (co-pending application) would encompass the instantly claimed range of 0.002 mol to 0.005 mol. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Instant Claim 8: The positive electrode active material of claim 1, wherein: an initial diffusion coefficient of the positive electrode active material ranged from 7.30 x 10-9 m2/sec to 8.10 x 10-9 m2/sec.
Co-pending Claim 11: The positive electrode active material of claim 1, wherein: an initial diffusion coefficient of the positive electrode active material ranged from 6.91 x 10-9 m2/sec to 7.58 x 10-9 m2/sec.
Wherein the skilled artisan would recognize that an initial diffusion coefficient value ranging from 6.91 x 10-9 m2/sec to 7.58 x 10-9 m2/sec (co-pending application) would overlap the instantly claimed range of 7.30 x 10-9 m2/sec to 8.10 x 10-9 m2/sec. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Instant Claim 9: The positive electrode active material of claim 1, wherein: a grain size of the metal oxide particle ranges from 900Å to 1,550 Å.
Co-pending Claim 12: The positive electrode active material of claim 1, wherein: a grain size of the metal oxide particle ranges from 1,036Å to 1,440 Å.
Wherein the skilled artisan would recognize that a grain size of 1,036Å to 1,440 Å (co-pending application) falls within, and therefore anticipates the instantly claimed range of 900Å to 1,550 Å.
Instant Claim 10: The positive electrode active material of claim 1, wherein: a full width at half maximum (FWHM) value for the (110) plane of the metal oxide particle ranges from 0.1890 to 0.2200.
Co-pending Claim 13: The positive electrode active material of claim 1, wherein: a full width at half maximum (FWHM) value for the (110) plane of the metal oxide particle ranges from 0.126 to 0.204.
Wherein the skilled artisan would recognize that a FWHM value ranging from 0.126 to 0.204 (co-pending application) would overlap the instantly claimed range of 0.1890 to 0.2200. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Instant Claim 12: The positive electrode active material of Claim 1, wherein: the content of nickel in the metal oxide particle is 0.8 mol or more, based on 1 mol of the total of the nickel, cobalt, manganese, and aluminum.
Co-pending Claim 15: The positive electrode active material of Claim 1, wherein: the content of nickel in the metal oxide particle is 0.8 mol or more, based on 1 mol of the total of the nickel, cobalt, manganese, and aluminum.
Instant Claim 13: A lithium secondary battery, comprising: a positive electrode comprising the positive electrode active material of claim 1; a negative electrode; and a non-aqueous electrolyte.
Co-pending Claim 16: A lithium secondary battery, comprising: a positive electrode comprising the positive electrode active material of claim 1; a negative electrode; and a non-aqueous electrolyte.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVIA MASON MELFI whose telephone number is (703)756-4652. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7am-6pm 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, Ula Ruddock can be reached on (571)272-1481. 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.
/O.M.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights