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 statements (IDS) were submitted on 06/20/2024, 10/17/2025 and 04/27/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 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.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2006/0263691 to Park et al.
With respect to claim 21, Park et al. teach a positive electrode active material for lithium-ion secondary batteries, wherein said positive electrode active material comprises Li, Co and O, and wherein the positive electrode active material comprises a first LCO powder (LiCoO2 (A)) and a second LCO powder (LiCoO2 (B)), wherein the first LCO powder has a first median particle size D50A of 15.1 μm, the second LCO powder has a second median particle size D50.sub.B of 5 μm, and the weight ratio of the second LCO powder to the positive electrode active material is about 5 to 40% (the volume fraction of the second LCO powder relative to the total volume of the positive electrode active material is between 10% and 40%) (Park et al.: Example 3; Claims 8-11).
With respect to claim 22, Park et al. teach the positive electrode active material for lithium-ion secondary batteries, wherein said positive electrode active material comprises M′ (Park et al.: Example 3; Claims 8-11).
With respect to claim 23, Park et al. teach the positive electrode active material for lithium-ion secondary batteries, wherein M′ comprises Al and Ti (Park et al.: Example 3; Claims 8-11).
With respect to claim 24, Park et al. teach the positive electrode active material for lithium-ion secondary batteries, wherein said second LCO powder comprises powder having an average primary particle size of between 3 μm and 7 μm (Park et al.: Example 3; Claims 8-11).
With respect to claim 25, Park et al. teach the same positive electrode active material, therefor, lacking of any clear distinction between the claimed positive electrode active material and those disclosed by Park, it would have expected for the positive electrode active material of Park to have a specific surface area of between 0.10 m.sup.2/g and 0.25 m.sup.2/g, as determined by BET analysis as claimed lacking unexpected result showing otherwise.
With respect to claim 26, Park et al. teach the same positive electrode active material, therefor, lacking of any clear distinction between the claimed positive electrode active material and those disclosed by Park, it would have expected for the positive electrode active material of Park to have a pressed density, after applying a uniaxial pressure of 207 MPa for 30 seconds, of between 3.9 g/cm3 and 4.3 g/cm3 as claimed lacking unexpected result showing otherwise.
With respect to claim 27, Park et al. teach the same positive electrode active material, therefor, lacking of any clear distinction between the claimed positive electrode active material and those disclosed by Park, it would have expected for the positive electrode active material of Park to have the ratio of the pressed density to the specific surface area is between 19.0 and 28.0 as claimed lacking unexpected result showing otherwise.
With respect to claim 28, Park et al. teach the positive electrode active material for lithium-ion secondary batteries, wherein said positive electrode comprises M′, wherein M′ comprises Ti and Mg (Park et al.: Example 3; Claims 8-11).
With respect to claim 32, Park et al. teach the positive electrode active material for lithium-ion secondary batteries, wherein said second median particle size D50B is between 5 μm and 7 μm (Park et al.: Example 3; Claims 8-11).
With respect to claim 33, Park et al. teach the positive electrode active material for lithium-ion secondary batteries, wherein the weight ratio of the second LCO powder to the positive electrode active material is about 5 to 40% (the volume fraction of the second LCO powder relative to the total volume of the positive electrode active material is between 15% and 30%) (Park et al.: Example 3; Claims 8-11).
With respect to claim 34, Park et al. teach the positive electrode active material for lithium-ion secondary batteries, wherein said positive electrode material comprises Li, Co, a metal M′ and O, wherein the metal M′ comprises Al, Ti, and Mg (Park et al.: Example 3; Claims 8-11).
Park et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the molar ratio of Al to Co (Al/Co) is between 0.001 and 0.030, the molar ratio of Mg to Co (Mg/Co) is between 0.001 and 0.020, and the molar ratio of Ti to Co (Ti/Co) is between 0.001 and 0.005, as determined by ICP-OES analysis. It would have been obvious as of the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to have the molar ratio of Al to Co (Al/Co) is between 0.001 and 0.030, the molar ratio of Mg to Co (Mg/Co) is between 0.001 and 0.020, and the molar ratio of Ti to Co (Ti/Co) is between 0.001 and 0.005, as determined by ICP-OES analysis, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). It has been held that discovering that general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller,105 USPQ 233. Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
With respect to claim 35, Park et al. teach the same positive electrode active material, therefor, lacking of any clear distinction between the claimed positive electrode active material and those disclosed by Park, it would have expected for the positive electrode active material of Park to have a specific floating capacity of between 10 mAh/g and 150 mAh/g, as determined by an electrochemical analysis at 4.5V and 50° C. for 120 hours as claimed lacking unexpected result showing otherwise.
With respect to claims 36-40, it would have the same functionality or purpose as the claimed limitation. Accordingly, in a product-by-process claim, the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. In re Thorpe 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964,966 (Fed Cir. 1985) and MPEP 2113.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINGWEN R ZENG whose telephone number is (571)272-6649. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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, Tiffany Legette can be reached on (571) 270-7078. 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.
/LINGWEN R ZENG/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 9/19/2026
Prosecution Insights