CTNF 18/285,582 CTNF 101862 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Election/Restrictions 08-25-01 AIA Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-8, 16-17) in the reply filed on 5/21/26 is acknowledged. Claims 9-15 are withdrawn from further consideration. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/21/26. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 2, 5-7, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashimura (JP 2016122626) in view of Mitsumoto et al. (US 20210159496), hereinafter Mitsumoto . Regarding claim 1 , KASH teaches: A positive electrode material having a bimodal particle size distribution comprising (SOLUTION, [0009]): A first positive electrode active material (SOLUTION, [0009], positive active material (2)); A second positive electrode active material (SOLUTION, [0009], positive active material (1)); Active materials have different average particle diameters (D 50 ) from each other (SOLUTION, [0009], positive active material (1), positive active material (2)); The first positive electrode active material comprises (SOLUTION, [0009], positive active material (2), [0009]): A lithium composite transition metal oxide represented by Formula 1 (SOLUTION, [0009], positive active material (2), Formula II of KASH) [Formula 1]: Li a Ni x Co y M 1 z M 2 w O 2 ([0009], Formula II of KASH) where: M 1 includes at least one of Mn or Al M 2 includes at least one of Zr, B, W, Mo, Mg, Ce, Hf, Ta, Nb, La, Ti, Sr, Ba, F, P, Si, or S 0.9 ≤ a ≤ 1.1, 0.7 ≤ x ≤ 1.0, 0 < y ≤ 0.2, 0 < z ≤ 0.2, 0 ≤ w ≤ 0.1. KASH fails to teach: A number of primary particles of the first positive electrode active material is from 6 to 30, which wherein the number of the primary particles is measured in a cross-sectional SEM image of secondary particles having an average particle diameter (D5o); The average particle diameter (D5o) is a particle diameter measured through a laser diffraction particle size measurement instrument where a maximum peak of a cumulative area cumulative particle size distribution of the first positive electrode active material appears. Mitsumoto teaches: The number of the primary particles is measured in a cross-sectional SEM image of secondary particles having an average particle diameter (D5o) ([0065-0067]); The average particle diameter (D5o) is a particle diameter measured through a laser diffraction particle size measurement instrument where a maximum peak of a cumulative area cumulative particle size distribution of the first positive electrode active material appears ([0065-0067]). KASH and Mitsumoto are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electrode materials. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to utilize the well-known characterization and measurement techniques taught by Mitsumoto when evaluating the positive electrode active materials of KASH because such techniques were conventionally employed in the art to characterize particle morphology and particle-size distributions and would have yielded predictable results. Regarding the limitation that the number of primary particles constituting the first positive electrode material is from 6 to 30, it would have been obvious to select a value within the claimed range because the number of primary particles forming a secondary particle is a result-effective variable affecting particle morphology, packing density, mechanical integrity, and electrochemical performance. Optimization of such a known result-effective variable through routine experimentation to achieve desired battery characteristics would have been well within the ordinary skill in the art. With respect to the claimed numerical ranges recited in the formula, KASH teaches values that overlap or otherwise encompass the claimed ranges. It is well established that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie within the ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to select within the claimed ranges as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable. Regarding claim 2 , KASH and Mitsumoto teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. KASH further teaches: The lithium composite transition metal oxide represented by Formula 1 is represented by Formula 1-1 (SOLUTION, [0009], positive active material (1), Formula I of KASH): [Formula 1-1]: Li a Ni x Co y Mn z M 2 w O 2 ([0009], Formula II of KASH) where: M 2 includes at least one of Zr, B, W, Mo, Mg, Ce, Hf, Ta, Nb, La, Ti, Sr, Ba, F, P, Si, or S; 0.9 ≤ a ≤ 1.1, 0.7 ≤ x < 1.0, 0 < y ≤ 0.2, 0 < z ≤ 0.2, 0 ≤ w ≤ 0.1. KASH and Mitsumoto are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electrode materials. With respect to the claimed numerical ranges recited in the formula, KASH teaches values that overlap or otherwise encompass the claimed ranges. It is well established that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie within the ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to select within the claimed ranges as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable. Regarding claim 5 , KASH and Mitsumoto teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. KASH further teaches the average particle diameter (D50) of the first positive electrode active material is smaller than the average particle diameter (D50) of the second positive electrode active material (positive active material (2) of KASH corresponds to first positive electrode active material, positive active material (1) of KASH corresponds to second positive electrode active material). KASH and Mitsumoto are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electrode materials. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to have the first positive electrode active material have a smaller average particle diameter than the second positive electrode active material as taught by KASH. Regarding claim 6 , KASH and Mitsumoto teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. KASH further teaches the first positive electrode active material has an average particle diameter (D50) of 2 μm or more and 7 μm or less ([0009], positive active material (2), specifically 1-5 μm). KASH and Mitsumoto are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electrode materials. It is well established that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie within the ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to select a first positive electrode active material with an average particle diameter within the claimed ranges as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable. Regarding claim 7 , KASH and Mitsumoto teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. KASH further teaches the second positive electrode active material has an average particle diameter (D50) of greater than 7 μm and 20 μm or less ([0009], positive active material (1), specifically 6-15 μm). KASH and Mitsumoto are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electrode materials. It is well established that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie within the ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to select a second positive electrode active material with an average particle diameter within the claimed ranges as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable. Regarding claim 16 , KASH and Mitsumoto teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. KASH further teaches a positive electrode comprising the electrode material of claim 1 (Abstract, [0001], [0022]). KASH and Mitsumoto are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electrode materials. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to incorporate the positive electrode material taught by KASH into a positive electrode to improve electrode density, structural stability, and energy density . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 3 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashimura and Mitsumoto, as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, in further view of Kwak et al. (US 20160254546), hereinafter Kwak . Regarding claim 3 , KASH and Mitsumoto teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. KASH fails to teach the first positive electrode active material comprises a coating layer which is formed on a surface of the lithium composite transition metal oxide and includes at least one of Al, Ti, W, B, F, P, Mg, Ni, Co, Fe, Cr, V, Cu, Ca, Zn, Zr, Nb, Mo, Sr, Sb, Bi, Si, Ta, S. Kwak teaches a positive electrode active material that comprises a coating layer which is formed on a surface of the lithium composite transition metal oxide and includes at least one of Al, Ti, W, B, F, P, Mg, Ni, Co, Fe, Cr, V, Cu, Ca, Zn, Zr, Nb, Mo, Sr, Sb, Bi, Si, Ta, S ([0007], [0028]). KASH and Kwak are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electrode materials. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to add a coating to the electrode material to prevent degradation and extend the lifetime of the positive electrode material as taught by Kwak ([0028]). Regarding claim 17 , KASH and Mitsumoto teach the limitations of claim 16, as stated above. KASH teaches a positive electrode comprising the electrode material of claim 1 (Abstract, [0001], [0022]). KASH fails to teach a lithium secondary battery comprising the positive electrode of claim 16, a negative electrode, a separator disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode, and an electrolyte. Kwak teaches a lithium secondary battery comprising the positive electrode of claim 16, a negative electrode, a separator disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode, and an electrolyte (Abstract). KASH and Kwak are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electrode materials. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to incorporate the positive electrode taught by KASH into the lithium secondary battery taught by Kwak to improve electrode density, structural stability, and energy density . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashimura and Mitsumoto, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Lee et al. (US 20210135216), hereinafter Lee . Regarding claim 4 , KASH and Mitsumoto teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. KASH further teaches a second positive electrode active material (SOLUTION, [0009], positive active material (1)). KASH fails to teach: The second positive electrode active material comprises a lithium composite transition metal oxide represented by Formula 2: [Formula 2]: Li a Ni x Co y M 3 z M 4 w O 2 ([0010-0011]) where: M 3 includes at least one of Mn or Al; M 4 includes at least one of Zr, B, W, Mo, Mg, Ce, Hf, Ta, Nb, La, Ti, Sr, Ba, F, P, Si, or S; 0.9 ≤ a ≤ 1.1, 0.8 ≤ x < 1.0, 0 < y < 0.2, 0 < z < 0.2, 0 ≤ w ≤ 0.1. Lee teaches: A electrode active material comprises a lithium composite transition metal oxide represented by Formula 2: [Formula 2]: Li a Ni x Co y M 3 z M 4 w O 2 ([0010-0011]) where: M 3 includes at least one of Mn or Al; M 4 includes at least one of Zr, B, W, Mo, Mg, Ce, Hf, Ta, Nb, La, Ti, Sr, Ba, F, P, Si, or S; 0.9 ≤ a ≤ 1.1, 0.8 ≤ x < 1.0, 0 < y < 0.2, 0 < z < 0.2, 0 ≤ w ≤ 0.1. KASH and Lee are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electrode materials. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to substitute the second positive electrode active material taught by KASH with the positive electrode active material taught by Lee because Lee teaches that this material composition is suitable for use as a positive electrode active material in a lithium-ion battery. The modification would have merely involved the substitution of one known positive electrode active material for another known positive electrode active material to obtain predictable results, such as providing a functioning positive electrode for a lithium-ion battery. Such a substitution represents the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashimura in view of Blangero et al. (US 20210005891), hereinafter Blangero . Regarding claim 16 , KASH and Mitsumoto teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. KASH teaches a positive electrode material having substantially the same composition and particle structure as the one claimed, as stated above. However, KASH does not expressly disclose a particle size change amount calculated by Equation 1. Blangero teaches evaluating powder and particle mechanical properties, including particle hardness and crushability under applied pressure ([0100-0112]). Blangero further teaches assessing changes in particle characteristics resulting from compression and the relationship between particle strength and resistant to particle breakage. KASH and Blangero are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electrode materials. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to evaluate the positive electrode material of KASH using the powder crushability and particle hardness evaluation techniques taught by Blangero in order to characterize the mechanical strength and compression resistance of the positive electrode material. Such characterization techniques were known in the art for assessing materials for battery manufacturing processes involving compression and densification. Furthermore, because KASH teaches substantially the same positive electrode material as claimed, the recited particle size change amount is a property of the prior-art material. Therefore, the claimed particle size change amount would have been expected to result from the prior-art material when evaluated using known particle hardness and compression testing techniques such as those taught by Blangero. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tamara Orduna whose telephone number is (571) 431-1457. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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. /TAMARA ORDUNA/Examiner, Art Unit 1776 /Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776 Application/Control Number: 18/285,582 Page 2 Art Unit: 1776 Application/Control Number: 18/285,582 Page 3 Art Unit: 1776 Application/Control Number: 18/285,582 Page 4 Art Unit: 1776 Application/Control Number: 18/285,582 Page 5 Art Unit: 1776 Application/Control Number: 18/285,582 Page 6 Art Unit: 1776 Application/Control Number: 18/285,582 Page 7 Art Unit: 1776 Application/Control Number: 18/285,582 Page 8 Art Unit: 1776 Application/Control Number: 18/285,582 Page 9 Art Unit: 1776 Application/Control Number: 18/285,582 Page 10 Art Unit: 1776 Application/Control Number: 18/285,582 Page 11 Art Unit: 1776 Application/Control Number: 18/285,582 Page 12 Art Unit: 1776
Prosecution Insights