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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2021-0163379, filed on 11/24/2021.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-7, in the reply filed on 4/23/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 8-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 4/23/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 6 requires that a, which indicates the atomic percent of Li in the compound, is between 1.0 and 1.3. This results in an Li/M ratio of 1.0-1.3, which is broader than that required by the parent claim (i.e., 1.03-1.05).
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
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) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US20210135187A1 – refer to IDS filed 7/15/2025) in view of Takano (US20200251733A1 – refer to IDS filed 12/24/2024).
Regarding Claims 1-3, 5 and 7, Park discloses a method of preparing a positive electrode active material [pars. 0044-0048,0059-65,0068-70], comprising:
(S1) preparing a positive electrode active material precursor including nickel, cobalt, and manganese (i.e., preparing a precursor including 65 mol% or more of nickel with cobalt and manganese) [par. 0046] (claim 5);
(S2) mixing the positive electrode active material precursor and a lithium source (lithium raw material) to form a mixture and sintering the mixture to form a lithium transition metal oxide (lithium composite transition metal oxide) [par. 0046]; and
(S3) washing the lithium transition metal oxide with a washing solution (e.g., with water) [pars. 0068-70],
wherein the sintering is performed in an oxygen atmosphere (i.e., “more preferably in an oxygen atmosphere” as opposed to air atmosphere) [par. 0065],
a molar ratio (Li/M) of lithium (Li) of the lithium source to total metallic elements (M) of the positive electrode active material precursor is in a range of 1.03 to 1.05 (i.e., 1.02-1.03 [par. 0064], or 1.04 as exemplified in Example 6 [par. 0110]) (claims 1,2), and
the washing solution is used in an amount of 50 parts by weight to 110 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the lithium transition metal oxide [par. 0105] (i.e., 300 g of lithium composite transition metal oxide added to 300 mL of water for washing, as exemplified in Example 1, results in 100 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the lithium transition metal oxide) (claims 1,7).
Park teaches performing the sintering more preferably in an oxygen atmosphere, as opposed to an air atmosphere [par. 0065], but fails to explicitly teach wherein the sintering is performed in an atmosphere with an oxygen concentration of 85% or more. However, Tanako, from the same field of endeavor, teaches a highly enriched sintering atmosphere, noting that firing a high-nickel cathode material should occur in an oxygen atmosphere of preferably > 80%, or more preferably, > 95%, in order ensure certainty of nickel oxidation from Ni2+ to Ni3+ to suppress destructive lithium/nickel cation mixing in the crystal lattice structure resulting in stabilized structure phase purity of the single-particle oxide and improved charge-discharge characteristics [Tanako – pars. 0033-34,0082-888]. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled artisan to have modified the method of Park by optimizing the sintering atmosphere to have an oxygen concentration of 85% to 100% in order to ensure certainty of nickel oxidation from Ni2+ to Ni3+ to suppress destructive lithium/nickel cation mixing in the crystal lattice structure resulting in stabilized structure phase purity of the single-particle oxide and improved charge-discharge characteristics, without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success [MPEP 2144.05(II)] (claims 1, 3).
Regarding Claim 4, Park discloses wherein the sintering is performed at 870-900o C [par. 0065].
Regarding Claim 6, Park discloses wherein the lithium transition metal oxide is a compound represented by Li1.04Ni0.82Co0.12Mn0.06O2 (i.e., as exemplified by Example 6) [pars. 0101-105,0110].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAROON S SHEIKH whose telephone number is (571)270-0302. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6.
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, JONATHAN LEONG can be reached at (571) 270-1292. 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.
HAROON S. SHEIKH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1751
/Haroon S. Sheikh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
Prosecution Insights