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 .
Examiner Note
It is noted that all references hereinafter to Applicant’s specification (“spec”) are to the published application US-2025-0171330-A1, unless stated otherwise. Further, any italicized text utilized hereinafter is to be interpreted as emphasis placed thereupon.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed 24MAY2024, 01OCT2025, and 21NOV2025 are in compliance with 37 CFR 1.97 and have been considered.
Election/Restriction
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group 1, claim(s) 1-3 and 11-15, drawn to products – a single-particle positive electrode active material and a positive electrode comprising the single-particle positive electrode active material
Group 2, claim(s) 4-10, drawn to a process – an anode material for an electrochemical cell
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Group 1 to 2 Inventions lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require a single-particle positive electrode active material, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Seo (US-20220411284-A1; “Seo”). Seo teaches a lithium transition metal oxide particle [0166], which is a single-particle serving as the positive electrode active material ([0166]-[0167], [0135]-[0136]).
Therefore, no special technical features are found in the claimed invention that define a contribution over the prior art. Thus, restriction is appropriate.
The inventions require a different field of search and employing different search strategies or search queries related to process and apparatus searches.
A telephone call was made to CARO-ESPOSITO, DANIELA on September 15, 2026 to request an oral election to the above restriction requirement, which resulted in the election of Group 1 upon subsequent communication with Kelly Huang on September 16, 2026.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-3, 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, the term "(cosα)2 value of 0.5 or greater“ (lines 1-2) has a mathematical upper limit of 1 as defined by a person of ordinary skill in the art. The specification lacks an alternative mathematical definition for "(cosα)2“. Because the upper limit of (cosα)2 is 1, values exceeding 1 cannot fall within the claimed range.
It is noted that the broadest reasonable interpretation of "(cosα)2 value of 0.5 or greater” is any value that lies between 0.5 and 1, including endpoints, in line with the mathematical bounds of the cosine function.
Regarding Claim 12, the term "(cosθ) value of 0.6 or greater2“ (line 2) has a mathematical upper limit of 1 as defined by a person of ordinary skill in the art. The specification lacks an alternative mathematical definition for "(cosθ)2“. Because the upper limit of "(cosθ)2“ is 1, values exceeding 1 cannot fall within the claimed range.
It is noted that the broadest reasonable interpretation of value of "(cosθ) value of 0.6 or greater2“ (line 2) is any value that lies between 0.6 and 1, including endpoints, in line with the mathematical bounds of the cosine function.
Claims 2-3, 11-15 are indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as they are directly or ultimately dependent on claim 1 and therefore include, and do not remedy the indefiniteness issues of claim 1 identified hereinabove.
Claims 13 and 15 are indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as they are directly or ultimately dependent on claim 12 and therefore include, and do not remedy the indefiniteness issues of claim 12 identified hereinabove.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Park” (US-2022/0131145-A1; “Park”).
Regarding Claims 1 and 14, Park teaches a “primary particle” may refer to a single particle (monolith) which exists alone without forming an aggregate [0032] (single-particle). Park teaches a cathode active material (positive electrode active material) [0002]. Park teaches the primary particle may have a crystal structure [0013]. Moreover, Park teaches electron back scatter diffraction (EBSD) to calculate the crystal structure, orientation information of crystal lattice, and the like [0053]. Park teaches the primary particles include a first particle, and the first particle has an angle of 45° to 90° formed by a direction from a center of the first particle to a center of the lithium composite oxide particle and a direction of the lithium conduction pathway through which lithium ions are diffused (lithium migration path) included in the first particle [0012]. This angle generates a value of 0.5 when the angle is 45° for (cosα)2, which falls in the claimed range of 0.5 or greater (claim 1) or from 0.5 to 1 (claim 14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379.
Park teaches the lithium conduction pathway (lithium migration path) may be formed in an ab-axis direction of the hexagonal crystal structure [0014]. As shown in Fig. 3 of Park, duplicated from Sheet 2 of Drawings of Park, the x-direction also passes through an axis of the crystal grains [0047].
PNG
media_image1.png
365
358
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Lithium Migration Path)]
[AltContent: textbox (Long Axis of a Crystal Grain)]
[AltContent: arrow]
Fig. 3 of Park, duplicated from Sheet 2 of Drawings of Park
Regarding Claim 11, Park teaches that the cathode may include a cathode current collector and a cathode active material layer formed by applying the cathode active material to the cathode current collector [0095].
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Park” (US-2022/0131145-A1; “Park”) in view of Takanashi (US-20220109141-A1; “Takanashi”).
Regarding Claim 2, Park teaches the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Regarding Claim 2, Park teaches that the ratio of the number of the first particles (single crystal particles – [0013]) among the primary particles located on the surface of the lithium composite oxide particle may be measured through electron back scatter diffraction (EBSD) [0052].
Park does not teach the number of single crystal particles.
Takanashi teaches the first particle (single-particles) may consist of 1 single-particle [0061], which falls within the claimed range of 1 to 50 single crystal particles. Prior art which teaches a range within, overlapping, or touching the claimed range anticipates if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with sufficient specificity. See MPEP 2131.03 and Ex parte Lee, 31 USPQ2d 1105 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the positive electrode active material of Park to contain 1 single-particle crystal as taught by Takanashi. Park and Takanashi each constitute prior art which is directly analogous to claimed invention (MPEP 2141.01(a)(I)) by falling in the same field of endeavor of batteries. Takanashi teaches the packing characteristics of a positive electrode active material can be optimized through the flow friction coefficient, which also increases the energy density and cycle durability [0034]. The “mixing fraction” can affect the ffc (flow function coefficient) [0113], wherein the “mixing fraction” represents the mass fraction of the first particle group with respect to the total of the first particle group and the second particle group [0119]. Takanashi establishes the number of primary particles (with respect to total of the first particle group and the second particle group) as a result-effective variable that can be optimized. A particular parameter can be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, and the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05.II.B.). The effect of the number of particles through the mass fraction on the packing characteristics, the flow function coefficient, energy density and cycle durability provides the motivation for incorporating these features readily known in the art, wherein the flow function coefficient of the positive electrode active material powder is greater than or equal to 2.9 [0013].
Regarding Claim 3, Park teaches the primary particle may have a mean particle diameter (D50) of 0.5 to 1.2 μm [0072], which falls in the claimed range of 0.1 to 10 μm. Prior art which teaches a range within, overlapping, or touching the claimed range anticipates if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with sufficient specificity. See MPEP 2131.03 and Ex parte Lee, 31 USPQ2d 1105 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993).
Claims 12-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Park” (US-2022/0131145-A1; “Park”) in view of Ohira (US-20180233744-A1; “Ohira”).
Regarding Claims 12 and 15, Park teaches the elements of Claim 11 as discussed above.
Park teaches an angle in relation to a lithium migration path of the single-particle positive electrode material [0012].
Park does not teach a parallel axis with respect to an upper surface of the current collector.
Ohira teaches an orientation angle γ of each primary particle 20 relative to the plate face direction can be set to a desirable value from 0° to 90°. The orientation angle γ is an angle of inclination that the (003) plane of the primary particle 20 subtends relative to the plate face direction [0046] (please refer to Fig. 2 of Ohira below).
PNG
media_image2.png
698
498
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Long Axis of a Crystal Grain (003 Plane))]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (Orientation angle γ relative to the plate face direction)]
Fig. 2 of Ohira, duplicated from Sheet 2 of Drawings of Ohira
Ohira teaches the average orientation angle θ is calculated based on the length distribution of the orientation angle γ of each primary particle 20 that is exposed in the solid electrolyte-side surface 106a in the EBSD (electron backscatter diffraction) image in a cross section of the positive electrode plate 106 [0049].
Ohira teaches a relationship between the average orientation angle θ and the expansion-contraction ratio E:
E=2.56α×sin θ Equation (1) [0047]
Ohira teaches the expansion-contraction ratio E is less than or equal to 0.5%; for example, when the reduction amount α is 0.1, the average orientation angle θ is greater than 0° and less than or equal to 90°, and when the reduction amount α is 0.7, the average orientation angle θ is greater than 0° and less than or equal to 20° [0048], the reduction amount α representing the reduction amount of composition ratio x of Li (LixCoO2) during charging [0046-0047].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the positive electrode active material of Park to optimize the angle between a long-axis of a crystal grain of the single-particle positive electrode active material (which is relative to the lithium migration path of Park) and a parallel axis with respect to an upper surface of the current collector, as taught by Ohira, to result in a (cos(θ))2 between 0.6 and 1 and a difference of (cosθ)2 and (cosα)2 of 0.2 or less. Park and Ohira each constitute prior art which is directly analogous to claimed invention (MPEP 2141.01(a)(I)) by falling in the same field of endeavor of batteries. Ohira establishes the orientation angle (which relates to the lithium migration path through the long axis of a crystal grain of Park) as a result-effective variable that can be optimized. A particular parameter can be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, and the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05.II.B.). Ohira in Table 1 of Ohira teaches a superior capacity maintenance rate of greater than or equal to 90% in Sample No. 1 to 6, 10 to 11, and 13 in which the expansion-contraction ratio E in a plate face direction of the positive electrode plate is less than or equal to 0.5%, which is also correlated with the orientation angle. This feature is due to the fact that peeling of the positive electrode plate from the solid electrolyte layer or defects in the solid electrolyte layer are inhibited as a result of a reduction of stress produced in the interface between the positive electrode plate and the solid electrolyte layer by reducing the value of the expansion-contraction ratio E in the plate surface of the positive electrode plate [0116].
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US-20200153035-A1 to Miyazaki T. teaches “predetermined leaf-vein-shaped cracking” as an absolute value of the difference between the angles θ1 and θ2, |θ1−θ2|, is 30° or less. The absolute value |θ1−θ2|is set as 30° or less in consideration of a spatial twisting relationship between each layer of two crystalline grains forming the grain boundary 111, a cut surface of the sample piece, and the spatial twisting relationship between each layer of two crystalline grains forming the grain boundary 111 [0039]
US-20200280047-A1 to Tanaka K. teaches the positive-electrode plate 12 includes multiple primary grains composed of lithium complex oxide. The primary grains are preferably oriented by a mean angle of more than 0° to 30° relative to a main face of the positive-electrode plate [0035].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM FADDOUL SAVAGE whose telephone number is (571)270-0315. The examiner can normally be reached 8a.m.-5p.m..
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at 571-272-8935. 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.
/WILLIAM FADDOUL SAVAGE/
Examiner, Art Unit 1782
/AARON AUSTIN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights