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
This application is a 371 of PCT/KR2022/013228 (filed 09/02/22), which application claims priority to KR 10-2021-0117443 (filed 09/03/21).
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Amendment(s)
The Preliminary Amendment filed 03/01/24 is entered.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
The Abstract filed 03/01/24 is entered.
The amendment to the specification page 1 (Cross Reference to Related Applications) filed 03/01/24 is entered.
Drawings
The Drawings filed 03/01/24 are approved by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I (claims 1-12) without traverse in the Reply filed 02/26/26 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS statements filed 03/01/24, 06/12/24, 10/07/24, 01/29/25, and 07/21/25 have been considered. Initialed copies accompany this action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and/or 103
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed 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.
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 Construction
The examiner construes the claim terminology “a single particle” to encompass/require primary particles which are non-aggregated (i.e. not secondary particles or agglomerated particles) in microstructure (see para 0137 and Fig 3 of instant PGPUB 2025/0033994 A1). Also, with respect to the instant claim language relating to “central portion” and “surface portion” of the metal oxide particle, the examiner submits that every particle inherently contains both a center and surface portion, even if the reference disclosure is silent with respect to such. Note there is no claim language differentiating between the two portions (e.g. different microstructures, orientation, stoichiometry, etc). During patent examination, the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." The Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Claim(s) 1, 2, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al US 2021/0005875 A1.
Lee et al US 2021/0005875 A1 discloses positive electrode active material for a secondary battery includes a lithium composite transition metal oxide including nickel (Ni), cobalt (Co), and manganese (Mn), wherein the lithium composite transition metal oxide has a layered crystal structure of space group R3m, includes the nickel (Ni) in an amount of 60 mol % or less based on a total amount of transition metals, includes the cobalt (Co) in an amount greater than an amount of the manganese (Mn), and is composed of single particles (Abstract; 0020; 0023). The examiner submits that the disclosure of “single particle” and R3m space group meet each of the instantly claimed limitations relating to such properties on the surface of the particle. Additionally, the reference teaches a crystallite size of 210 nm or more (0026-0027) and a D50 of 4.3-8.0 microns (Table 1 examples 1-4), which meets the claim limitations relating to “average grain size” and D50. With respect to dependent claim 10, while the reference teaches that the metal oxides are in the form of “single particle”, the examiner respectfully submits that the compositions would inherently contain at least some measurable amount of aggregated particles due to incomplete or over-reacted precursors (instant para 0066-0067), and therefore meet the claim limitation. During patent examination, the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." The Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
The reference is anticipatory.
Claim(s) 4-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al US 2021/0005875 A1.
Lee is relied upon as set forth above. With respect to dependent claims 4-9, the reference clearly teaches overlapping amount(s) and stoichiometry of the claimed metal oxides and dopant elements (para 0038-0042). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In view of the foregoing, the above claims have failed to patentably distinguish over the applied art.
The remaining references listed on forms 892 and 1449 have been reviewed by the examiner and are considered to be cumulative to or less material than the prior art references relied upon in the rejection above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Dependent claims 3 and 11-12 are allowed. The prior art above does not fairly suggest or possess with inherent certainty the crystal phase or additional particle limitations required in these claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK T KOPEC whose telephone number is (571)272-1319. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00a-5:00p 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, Robert Jones can be reached at 5712707733. 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.
/MARK KOPEC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762
MK
March 20, 2026