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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-5 in the reply filed on 03/27/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 6 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/27/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Yun et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0393502).
Regarding claim 1, Yun et al. teaches a nickel-based active material precursor for a lithium secondary battery, wherein each of the particles includes lithium and a transition metal element (paragraph 4). Yun et al. teaches the nickel-based active material precursor, the particulate structure has a size of about 2 μm to about 7 μm which is encompassed by the particles have an average particle size of 2.0 μm or more (paragraph 41). Yun et al. teaches the size (mean particle diameter) of the lithium precursor may be about 5 μm to about 15 μm which is encompassed by the particles have an average particle size of 2.0 μm or more (paragraph 71). Yun et al. teaches mixing/milling the nickel-based active material precursor and the lithium precursor (paragraph 71). Yun et al. does not teach in the case of obtaining a reflected electron image of the particles with a scanning electron microscope, a domain observed as a brightest region in the particles has a maximum diameter less than 1 μm.
Paragraphs 32 and 33 of Applicant’s Published Specification recites [0032] In one particle containing Li and the transition metal element, in a case where Li distribution (i.e., dispersion state) is not uniform, a region where transition metal elements are collectively present is generated and forms the brightest region in the particle in the reflected electron image. This region is herein referred to as a “domain.” Thus, the size of this domain is closely related to a dispersion state of Li in the particle.
[0033] In this embodiment, the state where the maximum diameter of the domain is less than 1 μm means that Li is highly dispersed in the particle.
It is clear that the mixed/milled nickel-based active material precursor and the lithium precursor taught by Yun et al. would necessarily produce a reflected electron image of the particles with a scanning electron microscope, a domain observed as a brightest region in the particles has a maximum diameter less than 1 μm because the mixing/milling would highly disperse the lithium particles. Further, given the particle in Yun is substantially identical to the particle used in the present invention, it is clear that the particle of Yun would be capable to be convertible to a lithium transition metal composite oxide by firing, as presently claimed. Furthermore, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Regarding claim 2, Yun et al. Lia(Ni1-x-y-z CoxMnyMz)O2, Formula 2 wherein, in Formula 2, M is an element selected from the group consisting of B, Mg, Ca, Sr, Ba, Ti, W, V, Cr, Fe, Cu, Zr, and Al, 1.0≤a≤1.3, x≤(1−x−y−z), y≤(1−x−y−z), 0<x<1, 0≤y<1, 0≤z<1, and 0<1−x−y−z<1 which meets the limitation of wherein an atomic ratio of lithium to the transition metal element is 0.75 or more and 1.25 or less (paragraphs 60 and 61).
Regarding claim 3, Yun et al. teaches raw material include metal carbonates (paragraph 53).
Regarding claim 4, Yun et al. teaches amorphous particles (paragraph 30).
Regarding claim 5, Yun et al. teaches a nickel-based active material precursor for a lithium secondary battery which meets the limitation of wherein the transition metal element includes at least Ni (paragraph 21).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GUINEVER S GREGORIO whose telephone number is (571)270-5827. The examiner can normally be reached M-W 11 am - 9 pm.
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, Coris Fung can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/GUINEVER S GREGORIO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 04/17/2026
Prosecution Insights