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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/19/2025 has been entered.
Claims 27-50 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 27 is objected to because “an” after “said” in lines 9 and 13 should be deleted, respectively. Further, the term “Li+” in line 6 of the same claim should be changed to a neutral compound, for example, Li2CO3, according to paragraph 33 of the specification.
Claim 50 is objected to because one of the words “said” should be deleted and the term “Li+” should be changed in accordance to parent claim 27.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 27-31, 33-39, and 42-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11,316,157 to Huang, in view of CN 105753072 to Chu et al.
Regarding claims 27 and 50, Huang teaches a method of forming a lithium ion cathode material comprising: adding Ni powder, Co powder, Mn powder, citric acid (a multi-carboxylic acid), and nitric acid (HNO3) in an aqueous solution to form carboxylates (multi-carboxylic acid salts) and adding Li2CO3 to form a oxide precursor followed by drying and heating said oxide precursor to form said lithium ion cathode material (abstract; from column 2, line 40 to column 3, line 6; column 9, lines 30-49; from column 12, line 26 to column 13, line 46). Huang further teaches that nickel reacts with nitric acid (HNO3) to form nickel nitrate Ni(NO3)2 in the same aqueous solution where nickel and other metal elements react with citric acid (from column 7, line 4 to column 8, line 38), which means that nickel nitrate is formed and combined with the other metals and citric acid in the same solution, thereby forming a multi-carboxylic acid salt of said nickel (nickel carboxylate) and multi-carboxylic acid salts of oxidized Co (cobalt carboxylate) and oxidized Mn (manganese carboxylate) in water.
Huang does not expressly teach that the lithium compound or Li2CO3 is added to the same aqueous solution.
Chu et al. also relates to a method of forming a lithium ion cathode material and teaches that a lithium source is added to an aqueous solution of manganese powder, citric acid, and a nickel source to obtain a mixed solution which is then dried and thermally treated to produce a nickel lithium manganate (abstract; [0008-17]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included lithium compound or Li2CO3 in the same aqueous solution in the method Huang, motivated by the fact that Chu et al. demonstrates that the lithium source is added to the reaction mixture with the other reactants (abstract; [0008-17]) and that the resulting positive electrode material leads to a battery with better rate performance and cycle performance ([0022]).
Regarding claim 28, the nickel powder is considered to have no more than 0.05 wt% sulfur as sulfur is not used in the process (from column 2, line 40 to column 3, line 6; column 8, lines 3-13; from column 12, line 26 to column 13, line 46).
Regarding claims 29 and 30, the metals are Mn and Co (from column 7, line 4 to column 8, line 38; column 9, lines 31-64; from column 12, line 26 to column 13, line 46).
Regarding claim 31, citric acid in Huang is a multi-carboxylic acid (from column 7, line 4 to column 8, line 38).
Regarding claims 33-39, Huang teaches LixMn2O4, where x is in the range from 0.8 to 1.3, which is a spinel crystalline compound (abstract; column 1, lines 38-44; column 2, lines 35-42; column 11, lines 9-16), but does not expressly teach the claimed Formula I.
Chu et al. also relates to a method of forming a lithium ion cathode material comprising reacting elemental metals with citric acid (a multi-carboxylic acid) followed by drying and heat-treating (abstract; [0008-17]) and teaches that the lithium ion cathode material is spinel LiNi0.5Mn1.5O4 ([0005]; [0040]), which meets the claimed Formula I of claim 33 and limitations of claims 34-38. A molar ratio of Mn to Ni is no more than 3 per claim 39.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arrived at the claimed invention by adjusting the molar ratio of the metals as suggested by Huang (column 2, lines 35-42; from column 12, line 26 to column 13, line 46) and making a known spinel product as demonstrated by Chu et al.
Regarding claims 42 and 43, since the dopant in the Formula I can be 0, the instant claims are proviso upon parent claim 33 and are considered met.
Regarding claims 44-46, Huang teaches NMC622 (LiNi0.6Mn0.2Co0.2O2) as an example (column 12, lines 3-4), which meets the claimed Formula II where a in the claim is 0.6, b is 0.2, c is 0.2, d is 0, and a+b+c+d=1.
Regarding claim 47, Huang teaches LixNi1-y-zMnyCozO2, where x is in the range from 0.80 to 1.3, y is in the range from 0.01 to 0.5, and z is in the range from 0.01 to 0.5) (abstract; column 2, lines 35-42; column 11, lines 9-16).
Although Huang does not expressly indicate that the subscripts of Ni, Mn, and Co are equal as claimed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arrived at the claimed invention as the taught ranges of the subscripts in Huang’s formula render obvious the claimed ratio.
Regarding claim 48, Huang teaches that heating or calcining is in air (column 10, lines 20-21).
Regarding claim 49, Huang anticipates a battery comprising the lithium metal oxide made of the method of claim 27 (abstract; column 1, lines 13-16).
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang and Chu et al. as applied to claim 31 above, in view of CN 1567620 to Wang et al. (machine translation provided for citation).
Regarding claim 32, Huang does not expressly teach that the multi-carboxylic acid is oxalic acid.
Wang et al. also relates to a method of forming a lithium ion cathode material and teaches that the method comprises reacting a metal compound including nickel nitrate with a complexing agent such as oxalic acid or citric acid (multi-carboxylic acid) and calcining the resulting compound to form the lithium ion cathode material (abstract; claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used oxalic acid in the method of Huang, motivated by the fact that Huang and Wang et al. demonstrate that oxalic acid and citric acid are known carboxylic acids or complexing agents that transform metals and metal compounds into oxide precursors (Huang abstract; from column 2, line 40 to column 3, line 6; from column 7, line 4 to column 8, line 38, Wang abstract; claim 1). The skilled artisan would have obtained expected results using a known acid in a similar reaction.
Claims 40 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang and Chu et al. as applied to claim 39 above, in view of CN 103682308 to Liu et al. (machine translation provided for citation).
Regarding claims 40 and 41, Huang teaches LixMn2O4, where x is in the range from 0.8 to 1.3 (abstract; column 1, lines 38-44; column 2, lines 35-42; column 11, lines 9-16). Chu et al. teaches that the lithium ion cathode material is spinel LiNi0.5Mn1.5O4 ([0005]; [0040]).
The prior arts do not expressly teach that the lithium ion cathode material has a molar ratio of Mn to Ni of at least 2.33 to less than 3 or at least 2.64 to less than 3.
Liu et al. also relates to a method of forming a lithium ion cathode material and teaches that the method comprises reacting metal compounds containing Li, Mn, Ni, and Ca and citric acid (a multi-carboxylic acid) to form an oxide precursor and heating said oxide precursor to form the lithium ion cathode material, wherein the cathode material comprises LiNi0.5Mn1.5-xCaxO4, wherein x is 0<x≤0.06 (abstract; [0013]; claim 1). A molar ratio of Mn to Ni falls within the claimed ranges.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arrived at the claimed molar ratio of Mn to Ni, motivated by the fact that Liu et al. teaches that the metal element Ca is doped into the spinel LiNi0.5Mn1.5O4 to replace the positions of some Mn atoms, resulting in shorter annealing time and improved cycle performance of the material ([0010]; [0037]) and so the skilled artisan would have adjusted the molar ratio of Mn to Ni according to the content of the dopant.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/3/2025 and 12/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the latter response, Applicant argued that the claim term Li+ clearly referred to a lithium salt or lithium carbonate. In response, the Examiner objected to the claims containing the term because Li+ is not a neutral compound that one would add to a reaction mixture and should be referred to as lithium carbonate as pointed out by Applicant. The Examiner had responded to Applicant’s earlier arguments in Advisory Action dated 12/5/2025. The claims stand rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENG M CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5859. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am - 5:30 pm on Monday, 9 am - 3 pm on Tuesday, and 9 am to 1 pm on Wednesday and Thursday.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/Heng M. Chan/Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/BASIA A RIDLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725