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 .
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du et al. (CN 111348372 A; hereinafter “Du”; using US 2021/0126242 for the English translation and citations; listed in the IDS filed 12 May 2025).
Regarding claim 1, Du teaches a positive electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery, comprising:
a mixture of microparticles having a predetermined average particle size (D50) (equated to lithium-nickel transition metal oxide B, see [0017]-[0019]) and macroparticles having a larger average particle size (D50) than the microparticles (equated to lithium-nickel transition metal oxide A, see [0017]-[0019]),
wherein the microparticles have the average particle size (D50) of 1 to 10 μm (lithium-nickel transition metal oxide B has Dv50 of 1 μm to 7 μm, see [0043]) and are at least one selected from the group consisting of particles having a carbon material coating layer on all or part of a surface of primary macroparticles having an average particle size (D50) of 1 μm or more (see [0043] and [0047]), particles having a carbon material coating layer on all or part of a surface of secondary particles formed by agglomeration of the primary macroparticles, and a mixture thereof,
the macroparticles are secondary particles having an average particle size (D50) of 5 to 20 μm (lithium-nickel transition metal oxide A has Dv50 of 8 μm to 15 μm, see [0040]) formed by agglomeration of primary microparticles having a smaller average particle size (D50) than the primary macroparticles (see [0041] – regarding the limitation “formed by agglomeration of the primary microparticles having a smaller average particle size (D50) than the primary macroparticles”, Applicant is reminded that the patentability of a product does not depend upon its method of production. See MPEP §2113), and a mixture thereof, and
the primary macroparticles and the primary microparticles comprise a nickel-based lithium transition metal oxide (see [0017]-[0019]).
Regarding claim 9, Du teaches a positive electrode material mixture for a lithium secondary battery, comprising:
the positive electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1 (see rejection for claim 1); and
a conductive material (conductive agent acetylene black, see [0061], [0062], and [0082]).
Regarding claim 10, Du teaches wherein the conductive material is present in an amount of 1 to 30 weight % based on the total weight of the positive electrode material mixture (see [0061], [0062], and [0082]).
Regarding claim 11, Du teaches a positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery comprising the positive electrode material mixture according to claim 10 (see [0080]-[0083])
Regarding claim 12, Du teaches a lithium secondary battery comprising the positive electrode according to claim 11 (see [0080]-[0091]).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 4, and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du (CN 111348372 A; using US 2021/0126242 for the English translation and citations; listed in the IDS filed 12 May 2025).
Regarding claim 2, Du teaches wherein the average particle size (D50) of the primary macroparticles is 1 to 3 μm (lithium-nickel transition metal oxide A has Dv50 of 8 μm to 15 μm, see [0043]; a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close, see MPEP §2144.05(I)), and the average particle size (D50) of the microparticles is 3 to 8 μm (lithium-nickel transition metal oxide B has Dv50 of 1 μm to 7 μm, see [0043] - In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 4, Du teaches wherein the average particle size (D50) of the primary microparticles is 100 to 900 nm (30 nm to 800 nm, see [0041]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 5, Du teaches wherein a ratio of the average particle size (D50) of the macroparticles: the average particle size (D50) of the microparticles is 5:1 to 2:1 (a mass ratio of the lithium-nickel transition metal oxide A (equated to the macroparticles) to the lithium-nickel transition metal oxide B (equated to the microparticles) is 10:1 to 1:1, see [0045]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hiratsuka (US 2015/0221934; hereinafter “Hiratsuka”).
Regarding claim 3, Du teaches wherein an average crystallite size of the primary macroparticles is 150 nm or more.
Hiratsuka teaches a lithium-nickel transition metal oxide (see [0026]) wherein the average crystallite size is 150 to 300 nm. When the average crystallite size is within this range, the ion conductivity of the composite oxide can be improved (see [0050]).
In view of Hiratsuka, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the positive electrode active material of Du to include wherein the average crystallite size is 150 to 300 nm, because it helps to improve the ion conductivity of the composite oxide. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Claim(s) 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (EP 3764438 A1, hereinafter “Kim”; listed in the IDS filed 12 May 2025).
Regarding claim 6, Du is silent to wherein the microparticles are present in an amount of 10 to 100 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the macroparticles.
Kim teaches a first positive active material and a second positive active material wherein the second positive electrode active material may be a secondary particle formed by agglomerating primary particles (see [0050]). The first positive electrode active material is a large particle and a second positive active electrode active material is a small particle (see [0023]). Kim teaches that the first positive electrode active material and the second positive electrode active material may be mixed at a weight ratio of 60:40 to 85:15. When the active materials are included in the above described ranges, the thermal stability of the active material may be enhanced, the destruction of the structure of the positive electrode active material and the deterioration of the cycle characteristics may be prevented, and the output and capacity characteristics of the batter may be further enhance (see [0051]).
In view of Kim’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the positive electrode active material of Du to include wherein the microparticles are present at a weight ratio of 60:40 to 85:15, because the thermal stability of the active material may be enhanced, the destruction of the structure of the positive electrode active material and the deterioration of the cycle characteristics may be prevented, and the output and capacity characteristics of the batter may be further enhanced. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 8, Du is silent to wherein the nickel-based lithium transition metal oxide is represented by LiaNi1-b-c-dCobMncQdO2+δ, wherein 1.0≤a≤1.5, 0<b≤0.5, 0<c≤0.5, 0≤d≤0.1, 0<b+c+d≤0.5, −0.1≤δ≤1.0, and Q is at least one type of metal element selected from the group consisting of Al, Mg, V, Ti and Zr.
Kim teaches a nickel-based lithium transition metal oxide is represented by Li1+p1[Ni1-(x1+y1+z1)Cox1Mny1Maz1]1-p1O2, wherein 0<p≤0.2, 0<x1≤0.5, 0<y1≤0.5, 0≤z1≤0.1, and 0<x1+y1+z1+≤0.7, and Ma is at least one or more elements selected from the group consisting of Ba, Ca, Zr, Ti, Mg, Ta, Nb, Al, Cr, and Mo. In this described range, the improvement of the output and capacity characteristics of the battery may be shown at a significant level (see [0031]-[0033]).
In view of Kim’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the nickel-based transition metal oxide of Du to include Li1+p1[Ni1-(x1+y1+z1)Cox1Mny1Maz1]1-p1O2, wherein 0<p≤0.2, 0<x1≤0.5, 0<y1≤0.5, 0≤z1≤0.1, and 0<x1+y1+z1+≤0.7, and Ma is at least one or more elements selected from the group consisting of Ba, Ca, Zr, Ti, Mg, Ta, Nb, Al, Cr, and Mo, because the improvement in the output and capacity characteristics of the battery may be shown at a significant level and the substitution of a known element (the nickel-based transition metal oxide of Du) for another known element (the nickel-based transition metal oxide of Kim) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with predictable results at the time the invention was filed.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kawakami et al. (US 2017/0352864; hereinafter “Kawakami”).
Regarding claim 7, Du is silent to wherein the carbon material coating layer is present in an amount of 0.05 to 10 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the primary macroparticles.
Kawakami teaches coating of a lithium-manganese complex oxide with a coating layer, which contains carbon. Since carbon has high conductivity, the particle coated with carbon in the electrode of the storage battery can reduce the resistance of the electrode, for example (see [0186]). Therefore, the carbon material coating is a result effective variable.
In view of Kawakami’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the positive electrode active material of Du to include wherein the carbon material coating layer is present in an amount of 0.05 to 10 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the primary macroparticles, because discovering the optimum amount of the carbon material coating layer to provide for the optimal reduction in the resistance of the electrode, would have been nothing more than routine optimization. See MPEP §2144.05(II).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN HA whose telephone number is (571)270-5934. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00 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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458 . 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.
/S.S.H/Examiner, Art Unit 1735 10 April 2026
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights