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 Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) and Third-Party Submission submitted on 05/18/2023, 11/30/2023, and 07/16/2024 have been considered by the examiner. Election/Restrictions Claims 10-15 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/27/2026. 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) 1-3, 6 -9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (US 20200136141 A1) . Regarding claim 1, Han teaches all of the following elements: A cathode for a lithium secondary battery, comprising: (“The present invention relates to a positive electrode active material for a secondary battery” Han [0001]) a cathode current collector; and a cathode active material layer formed on the cathode current collector, (“Specifically, the positive electrode includes a positive electrode collector and a positive electrode active material layer which is disposed on the positive electrode collector and includes the positive electrode active material.” Han [0083]) the cathode active material layer comprising lithium metal oxide particles that have a single particle shape, (“According to another aspect of the present invention, there is provided a positive electrode active material for a secondary battery which includes a lithium composite transition metal oxide including nickel (Ni), cobalt (Co), and manganese (Mn), wherein a particle of the lithium composite transition metal oxide includes a core portion and a resistance portion formed on a surface of the core portion and is composed of a single particle, “ Han [0010]) and a single crystalline structure or a poly-crystalline structure including two or more single crystals, wherein the cathode active material layer satisfies Formula 1: (Regarding this limitation, while Han does not explicitly teach the FIB analysis method as claimed, it does teach a method of preparing a cathode active material particle in the substantially same manner as in the instant application, and the instant application states that the crystal size measured by FIB may be adjusted by the first and second calcination [instant spec, paragraph [0053-0056]. Thus, by teaching a method of production that is the substantially same as the instant application, and forming a product with the same chemical composition [see table below for comparison], the product of Han would be the same, or substantially similar to the claimed product necessarily . Han teaches the following first and second calcination: “ In the case that the amount of the nickel (Ni) is less than 60 mol %, the primary sintering temperature may be 980° C. or more, preferably 990° C. to 1,050° C., and more preferably 1,000° C. to 1,030° C. The primary sintering may be performed for 5 hours to 20 hours, preferably 5 hours to 15 hours, and more preferably 5 hours to 12 hours. ” Han [0046], “ In the case that the amount of the nickel (Ni) is 60 mol % or more, the primary sintering temperature may be 850° C. or more, preferably 850° C. to 1,000° C., and more preferably 900° C. to 950° C. The primary sintering may be performed for 5 hours to 20 hours, preferably 5 hours to 15 hours, and more preferably 5 hours to 12 hours. ” Han [0047] and “ In a case in which the amount of the nickel (Ni) is less than 60 mol %, the secondary sintering is performed at a sintering temperature of 900° C. or less to form a lithium composite transition metal oxide. Also, in a case in which the amount of the nickel (Ni) is 60 mol % or more, the secondary sintering is performed at a sintering temperature of 800° C. or less to form a lithium composite transition metal oxide … In the case that the amount of the nickel (Ni) is less than 60 mol %, the secondary sintering temperature may be 900° C. or less, preferably 600° C. to 900° C., and more preferably 700° C. to 900° C. The secondary sintering may be performed for 5 hours to 20 hours, preferably 5 hours to 15 hours, and more preferably 5 hours to 10 hours. ” Han [0051]. This, compared to the instant specification, which teaches “ A first calcination of the mixture is performed at a first temperature. A second calcination of a product from the first calcination is performed at a second temperature lower than the first temperature. ” Instant spec [0030] and “i n some embodiments, the first calcination and the second calcination may each be performed for 1 hour to 10 hours. In some embodiments, the first temperature may be in a range from 900 °C to 1000 °C. In some embodiments, the second temperature may be in a range from 600 °C to 800 °C. ” Instant spec [0031-0033]. The temperature range and time of the first and second calcination steps closely overlap between the two inventions, and therefore the product of Han could be created having substantially the same properties as that in the instant application, thus meeting the limitations of claim 1. See table below for comparison. See MPEP 2112. II. or Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., for case law regarding the fact that an inherent feature need not be recognized at the relevant time in order for it to still anticipate the feature, which is later recognized). The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art ranges for the first and second calcination temperatures as well as the time encompass or overlap the claimed range s for the same parameters . Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05. Parameter Instant Application Han First calcination/sintering temperature 900-1000 C 980-1050 C (if Ni less than 60%) 850-1000 C (If Ni greater than 60%) Second calcination/sintering temperature 600-800 C 600-900 C (if Ni less than 60%) 500-800C (if Ni greater than 60%) Sintering/calcination time 1-10 hours for both 5-20 hours for both Composite oxide formula Li x Ni (1-a-b) M1 a M2 b O y M1 and M2 may each include at least one of Co, Mn, Al, Zr, Ti, Cr, B, Mn, Ba, Si, Y, W and Sr 0.9≤x≤1.2, 1.9≤y ≤2.1, and 0≤a+b≤0.2. Li p Ni 1-(z1+y1+z1) Cox 1 Mn y1 M a z1 O 2+ δ 1≤p≤1.3, 0<x1≤0.5, 0<y1≤0.5, 0≤z1≤0.1, and −0.1≤δ≤1. [Formula 1] 1 μm ≤ S/N ≤ 3 μm wherein, in Formula 1, N is a total number of single crystals in which at least one of a major axis length and a minor axis length is 0.3 μm or more in a focused ion beam (FIB) analysis image of the cathode active material layer, S is a total sum of crystal sizes of the single crystals in which at least one of the major axis length and the minor axis length is 0.3 μm or more in the FIB analysis image, and the crystal size of the single crystal means an average value of the major axis length and the minor axis length measured from the FIB analysis image. Regarding claim 2, Han teaches all of the following elements: The cathode for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein 1μm ≤ S/N ≤ 2μm. (The same reasoning as applied to claim 1 applies to claim 2 as well. Given that the first and second calcination steps of Han are the same, and they are forming a lithium composite oxide particle that may have the same composition and molar ratios [see above table for comparison] , the additional limitations would be met without requiring any further modification.) Regarding claim 3, Han teaches all of the following elements: The cathode for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein, in the FIB analysis image, a ratio of a total cross-sectional area of the single crystals in which at least one of the major axis length and the minor axis length is 0.3 μm or more relative to a total cross-sectional area of the lithium metal oxide particles is 0.5 or more. (The same reasoning as applied to claim 1 applies to claim 3 as well. Given that the first and second calcination steps of Han are the same, and they are forming the same lithium composite oxide particle, the additional limitations would be met without requiring any further modification.) Regarding claim 6, Han teaches all of the following elements: The cathode for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the lithium metal oxide particles satisfy Formula 2: [Formula 2] 9.8%≥100×I(110)/{I(110)+I(003)} wherein, in Formula 2, I(110) is a maximum height of a (110) plane peak in an X-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis spectrum measured for the lithium metal oxide particles, and I(003) is a maximum height of a (003) plane peak in the XRD analysis spectrum. (In the same reasoning as claim 1, by teaching a material with the same chemical composition and the same method of production as the instant application, the material of Han would inherently have the same XRD spectrum, despite not being explicitly stated in the same way as in the above claim. Additionally, Han teaches the use of XRD analysis on its material, even if not to come up with the same ratio/formula as described above “Crystallite sizes of the positive electrode active materials prepared in Examples 1 and 2 and Comparative Examples 1 and 2 were measured. The crystallite sizes were measured by XRD (Ultima IV) and their values were calculated.” Han [0126]) Regarding claim 7, Han teaches all of the following elements: The cathode for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the lithium metal oxide particles contain nickel (Ni). (“According to another aspect of the present invention, there is provided a positive electrode active material for a secondary battery which includes a lithium composite transition metal oxide including nickel (Ni),” Han [0010]) Regarding claim 8, Han teaches all of the following elements: The cathode for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 7, wherein Formula 3 is satisfied: [Formula 3] C ≥140+0.738×Ni C wherein, in Formula 3, C is a numerical value of a discharge capacity expressed in a unit of mAh /g measured by charging under constant current and constant voltage conditions of 0.1C 4.3V 0.05C CUT-OFF, and discharging under conditions of 0.1C 3V CUT-OFF of a half-cell having a lithium counter electrode, and Ni C is a numerical value of mol% of nickel relative to a total number of moles of all elements except lithium and oxygen in the lithium metal oxide particles. (Han table 3 examples 4-6 show a discharge capacity of 194-195 for active materials having a nickel content of 80%. Based on formula 3, this would be slightly below the requisite 199.04, but is close enough to create a case of obviousness. See Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) for how a nearly overlapping range that is not shown to be taught away by the prior art can suffice for a prima facie case of obviousness. As in that case, the proportions are so close that one skilled in the art would expect them to have the same properties. This is also the case for examples 1-3 of Han, which have a 50% nickel content and are just below the threshold of 176.9 given by formula 3, at 175-176. ) Regarding claim 9, Han teaches all of the following elements: A lithium secondary battery, comprising: the cathode for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1; and an anode facing the cathode. (“The lithium secondary battery specifically includes a positive electrode, a negative electrode disposed to face the positive electrode, a separator disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode, and an electrolyte, wherein the positive electrode is as described above.” Han [0092]) Claim (s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (US 20200136141 A1) in view of Ohsawa (US 20230223520 A1). Regarding claim 4, Han teaches a material that is both a single particle and contains both single crystal and polycrystalline structures: The cathode for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the lithium metal oxide particles comprise: first lithium metal oxide particles having a shape of a single particle and a poly-crystalline structure; and second lithium metal oxide particles having a shape of a single particle and a single crystalline structure. (“According to another aspect of the present invention, there is provided a positive electrode active material for a secondary battery which includes a lithium composite transition metal oxide including nickel (Ni), cobalt (Co), and manganese (Mn), wherein a particle of the lithium composite transition metal oxide includes a core portion and a resistance portion formed on a surface of the core portion and is composed of a single particle, wherein the core portion has a layered crystal structure of space group R-3m, and the resistance portion has a cubic rock-salt structure of space group Fm-3m.” Han [0010]. In this case, the core portion having a R-3m acts as the polycrystalline particle and the resistance portion having a Fm-3m portion acts as the single crystal particle.) However, Han doesn’t explicitly teach both a first and second active material particle that are distinctly separate from each other . Ohsawa does, and provides motivation for why this would be desirable in a secondary battery: The cathode for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the lithium metal oxide particles comprise: first lithium metal oxide particles having a shape of a single particle and a poly-crystalline structure; and second lithium metal oxide particles having a shape of a single particle and a single crystalline structure. (“In the present disclosure, provided is an electrode used in a battery, the electrode including: an electrode current collector; and an electrode active material layer, in which the electrode active material layer contains a single crystal electrode active material and a polycrystalline electrode active material as electrode active materials, in which the single crystal electrode active material and the polycrystalline electrode active material are lithium transition metal composite oxides,” Ohsawa [0008]) Ohsawa and Han are considered to be analogous because they are both within the same field of electrodes for secondary batteries containing lithium metal oxides as the active material. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the active material of Han to include a first and second particle, one single crystal and one polycrystalline, in order to reduce resistance and improve cycle characteristics (“ The electrode according to the present disclosure has an effect of achieving both reduction in resistance and improvement in cycle characteristics.” Ohsawa [0021]). Regarding claim 5, modified Han teaches all of the elements of claim 4, as shown above. While Ohsawa doesn’t explicitly teach a ratio of first and second particles based on particle number, it does teach a ratio based on weight, that, given the particles are made from the same material, would lead to a ratio of particles that is within the claimed range: The cathode for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 4, wherein, in the FIB analysis image, a ratio of the number of the second lithium metal oxide particles relative to the number of the first lithium metal oxide particles is in a range from 0.1 to 10. ( Ohsawa teaches a first and second synthesis product, which are both LiNi 1/3 Co 1/3 Mn 1/3 O 2 , where one is polycrystalline and one is single crystal [ Ohsawa 0071-0072] . The particle diameter for the single crystal is 1.5-6um, and the particle diameter for the polycrystalline is 0.5-1 .5 um [ Ohsawa 0034] . Ohsawa also teaches that the weight ratio between the first and second particles can be 50/50 [ Ohsawa table 1 example 2]. Based upon these teachings, the particle diameters could be the same size, the weight ratio can be 50/50, and the particles are made from the same material. Thus, the distinguishing characteristic that would determine the ratio of first and second particles would come from the weight of a single crystal vs polycrystalline material. In order to not anticipate the claimed range, the mass difference between the single crystal and polycrystalline materials would need to be 10-fold, which is almost certainly not the case based on the physical limitations of the material. Additionally, Ohsawa teaches the optimization of proportion between single-crystal and polycrystalline material “The first layer may contain only one type of single crystal electrode active material or two or more types thereof. The ratio of the single crystal electrode active material to all the electrode active materials included in the first layer may be, for example, more than 50% by weight, 70% by weight or more, 90% by weight or more, or 100% by weight. … The first layer may or may not contain a polycrystalline electrode active material. In the former case, the ratio of the polycrystalline electrode active material to all the electrode active materials included in the first layer may be, for example, 1 wt % or more and less than 50 wt %, and may be 5 wt % or more and 40 wt % or less.” Ohsawa [0041-0042]. Therefore, one skilled in the art would understand that altering these ratios in order to achieve optimal results is within reasonable experimentation.) Conclusion The following references were considered to be relevant but were not used in the rejection: Jiang (US 20240055577 A1) –teaches a method of preparation of a positive active material with a first and second calcination step that overlap the claimed temperature and duration parameters Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT BENJAMIN ELI KASS-MULLET whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-0156 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 8:30am-6pm except for the first Friday of bi-week . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT NICHOLAS SMITH can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-8760 . 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. /BENJAMIN ELI KASS-MULLET/ Examiner, Art Unit 1752 /NICHOLAS A SMITH/ Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752