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 submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 4/25/2025 and 2/26/2026 have been considered by the examiner. Initialed copies accompany this action.
Drawings
The Drawings filed 4/25/2025 are approved by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-7 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 Saruwatari et al (US20190165360).
Regarding claim 1, Saruwatari discloses a production method of a positive electrode active material for a lithium-ion secondary battery, the positive electrode active material including a lithium nickel complex oxide and containing secondary particles in which a plurality of primary particles are aggregated (abstract), the production method comprising: mixing a nickel-containing material containing at least nickel, and a lithium compound, thereby preparing a raw material mixture (para 0041); firing the raw material mixture in an oxidative atmosphere, thereby obtaining a fired product (para 0041); and spraying a boron-containing solution onto the fired product obtained in the firing, the boron-containing solution containing a boron-containing material that is at least one selected from a boron simple substance and a boron-containing compound (para 0058), wherein the lithium nickel complex oxide contains lithium (Li), nickel (Ni), boron (B), and element M (M) at a ratio by mole of Li:Ni:B:M=a:b:c:d, where 0.95≤a≤1.10, 0.50≤b<1.00, 0.00<c≤0.03, 0.00≤d≤0.47, b+c+d=1, and element M is at least one element selected from the group consisting of Mn, Co, V, Mg, Mo, Ca, Cr, Zr, Ta, Ti, Nb, Na, W, Fe, Zn, Si, Sn, Cu, P, and Al (para 0050-52). Saruwatari does not expressly disclose the lithium nickel complex oxide having a hexagonal crystalline layered structure. However, given that the lithium nickel complex oxide of Saruwatari is produced by identical or substantially identical processes as claimed, a person having an ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the lithium nickel complex oxide of Saruwatari to have the claimed structure. The law held that "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). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Saruwatari discloses the method of the positive electrode active material for the lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 1, further comprising: thermally treating, after the spraying, treated powder that is the fired product onto which the boron-containing solution is sprayed (para 73-74).
Regarding claims 4-7, Saruwatari does not disclose the claimed volume ratio based on a titration curve. However, given that the lithium nickel complex oxide of Saruwatari is produced by identical or substantially identical processes as claimed, a person having an ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the lithium nickel complex oxide of Saruwatari and the claimed to be identical or substantially identical. Therefore, the composition of prior art would possess the same properties as claimed because it has been held that "products of identical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties Applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAIDUNG D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5455. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 10a-3p.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at 571-272-2817. 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.
/HAIDUNG D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
7/11/2026
Prosecution Insights