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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/20/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 6-9, and 11 (claim 11 depends on previously withdrawn claim 6) are withdrawn.
Claims 1-5, 10 and 12 are rejected.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-5) in the reply filed on 06/05/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 6-9 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/05/2025.
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.
Claims 1-5, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimoto (WO 2021251416 A1, “Fujimoto”).
Regarding claim 1, claim 5, and claim 12, Fujimoto discloses a cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery (see abstract “positive electrode active material” & “lithium ion secondary batteries”) characterized in that the cathode active material comprises agglomerated particles represented by Formula A1 (see [0109] “lithium transition metal complex oxide synthesis process S3”; “aggregate composed of multiple secondary particles caused by sintering necking between secondary particles during firing”) and single crystal particles represented by Formula A2 (see [0022] “coating process in which at least part of the surface of the particles of the lithium transition metal complex oxide obtained in the lithium transition metal complex oxide synthesis process forms the coating layer containing lithium zirconium compounds”) A2 A1: Li1+a1Nix1Coy1Mz1M’1-x1-y1-z1O2 A2: Li1+a2Nix2Coy2Mz2M’1-x2-y2-z2O2 (see [0046] “the cathode active material” & “particles of lithium transition metal complex oxide and a coating coated with at least part of the particles of lithium transition metal complex oxide”; see [0047] “particles of the lithium transition metal complex oxides” & “lithium (Li), nickel (Ni), cobalt (Co), and element M(M) in such a way that the mass ratio is Li:Ni:Co:M=t:1-x-y:x:y”) wherein M is one or two elements selected from Mn and Al (see [0053] “element M include magnesium (Mg), aluminum (Al)”), M’ is one or more elements selected from Mg, Ca, Ti, V, Fe, Zr, Nb, Mo, W (see [0053] “magnesium (Mg)”, “calcium (Ca)”, “titanium (Ti) vanadium (V), iron (Fe)”, “zirconium (Zr)”, “niobium (Nb), molybdenum (Mo)”, “tungsten (W)”).
Regarding the limitations -0.03≤a1≤0.20 and -0.03≤a2≤0.20, Fujimoto discloses in [0047] “Li” & “t”; see [0048] “value of t, which indicates the content of lithium (Li), can be between 0.95 and 1.20”).
Regarding the limitations 0.08≤x1≤0.99 and 0.81≤x2≤0.995, Fujimoto discloses in [0052] “x” “more than 0” & “x to 0.22 or less”).
Regarding the limitations 0≤y1≤0.30 and 0≤y2≤0.30, Fujimoto discloses in [0051] “value of x, which indicates the content of cobalt, can be greater than 0 and less than 0.22, with 0.10 to 0.22, preferred” which lies within the claimed range).
Regarding the limitations 0≤z1≤0.30 and 0≤z2≤0.30, Fujimoto discloses in [0054] “value of y, which indicates the content of element M, can be less than 0.15” which lies within the claimed range).
Regarding the limitations 0≤1-x1-y1-z1≤0.10 and 0≤1-x2-y2-z2≤0.10, Fujimoto discloses in [0054] “value of y, which indicates the content of element M” & “less than 0.10 is preferable”).
Regarding the limitations with the proviso that: 0.01 ≤ x2-x1 ≤ 0.27, Fujimoto discloses in [0050] “Nickel (Ni) of the lithium transition metal complex oxide mentioned above is an element that contributes to the high capacity of secondary batteries” & see [0153]).
Regarding the limitations and 0.01 ≤ a2-a1≤0.20, Fujimoto discloses in [0110] “coating process S4 forms a coating containing lithium zirconium compounds on at least part of the surface of the particles of the lithium transition metal complex oxide” & [0112] describes coatings containing lithium compounds which describes more lithium in the secondary particles).
Regarding the limitations and the cathode active material has specific surface areas BETbefore and BETafter before and after sintering at 600°C in an air atmosphere for 8 hours, which satisfy: |BETafter - BETbefore|/ BETbefore ≤ 50%, and the agglomerated particles have specific surface areas BETbefore and BETafter before and after sintering at 600°C in an air atmosphere for 8 hours, which satisfy: (BETafter - BETbefore)/ BETbefore ≥ 15%, as required by claim 1, which satisfy: |BETafter – BETbefore| / BETbefore ≤ 30%, the agglomerated particles have specific surface areas BETbefore and BETafter before and after sintering at 600°C in an air atmosphere for 8 hours, which satisfy: 40 ≥ (BETafter – BETbefore) / BETbefore ≥ 20%, the single crystal particles have specific surface areas BETbefore and BETafter before and after sintering 600°C in an air atmosphere for 8 hours, which satisfy: 0 ≤ (BETbefore – BETafter) / BETbefore ≤ 10%, as required by claim 5, and characterized in that the single crystal particles have specific surface areas BETbefore and BETafter before and after sintering at 600°C in an air atmosphere for 8 hours, which satisfy: 0 ≤ (BETbefore – BETafter) / BETbefore ≤ 15%, as required by claim 12, Fujimoto discloses in [0097] “oxidative roasting process S2” & “air atmosphere” & “temperature between 500 °C and 700 °C, for more than 1 hour and not more than 12 hours” & “it is desirable to reduce the specific surface area of the transition metal composite oxides from being excessively small by setting the firing temperature below 700°C”.
Fujimoto discloses a range of between 500°C and 700°C, which overlaps with the claimed range of 600°C. MPEP 2144.05 I states that '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)'.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that Fujimoto would have the same BET ratio because the methods are substantially similar would produce the same BET ratio.
Regarding claim 2, Fujimoto discloses the cathode active material of claim 1 and further discloses characterized in that the agglomerated particles have a particle size D50 of 7.0 µm and the single crystal particles have a particle size D50 of 7.0 µm (see [0109] & [0159] “volume average particle size of the lithium transition metal complex oxide particles” & “7.0 µm”).
Fujimoto discloses a range of 7.0 µm, which lies within the claimed ranges of 6 to 30 µm & 0.1 to 10 µm. MPEP 2144.05 I states that '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)'.
Regarding claim 3, Fujimoto discloses the cathode active material of claim 1 and further discloses characterized in that the agglomerated particles are present in an amount of 90%, based on the weight of the cathode active material (see [0164] “composition” & “0.90 masses of Zr”), and the single crystal particles are present in an amount of 80%, based on the weight of the cathode active material (see [0068] “composition ratio of the surface mass of the coated metal is 0.80 or more”).
Fujimoto discloses a range of 0.90% by mass, which overlaps the claimed ranges of 20 to 90%. MPEP 2144.05 I states that '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)'.
Fujimoto discloses a range of 0.80 or more, which overlaps the claimed ranges of 10 to 80%. MPEP 2144.05 I states that '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)'.
Regarding claim 4, Fujimoto discloses the cathode active material of claim 1 and further discloses characterized in that the agglomerated particles have a coating layer containing at least one coating element: Zr (see [0112] “zirconium compounds as coating agents”).
Regarding the limitation wherein the coating element is present in an amount of 0.1 to 2 mol%, based on the agglomerated particles, Fujimoto discloses in [0160] “molar concentration of Zr in the coating was 0.08 mol/L”.
The amount of Zr disclosed by Fujimoto is close to the claimed range and similar properties are expected. It is the Office’s position that the values are close enough that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected similar properties. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 10, Fujimoto discloses the cathode active material of claim 1 and further discloses characterized in 0≤y1≤0.15 (Fujimoto discloses in [0051] “value of x, which indicates the content of cobalt, can be greater than 0 and less than 0.22, with 0.10 to 0.22, preferred”).
Fujimoto discloses a range of 0.10 to 0.22, which overlaps the claimed ranges of 0≤y1≤0.15. MPEP 2144.05 I states that '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)'.
Regarding the limitation 0≤z1≤0.18, and 0≤z2≤0.08, Fujimoto discloses in [0053] “aluminum (Al)” & in [0054] “element M” & “can be less than 0.15” which lies within the claimed range of z1 & “less than 0.05 is preferable” which lies within the claimed ranges).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5 and 10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH APPLEGATE whose telephone number is (571)270-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/S.A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/JAMES M ERWIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 05/11/2026
Prosecution Insights