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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/16/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments with respect to claims filed on 02/17/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-3 ,5, 15, 18, 20, 24, 27-28, 32, 41-42, 45-47, and 50-51 remain pending in this application and are currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
The amendments and remarks filed are sufficient to cure the previous Claim Objections, 35 U.S.C 112(a), and 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejections set forth in the Non-Final office action mailed on 11/05/2025.
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.
6. Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 15, 18, 20, 24, 27-28, 32, 41-42, 45-47, and 50-51 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson et al. (Pub. No. US 2013/0247363) in view of Nelson et al. (Pub. No. US 2018/0331361) and further in view of Chalmers University of Technology (2017, hereinafter referred to as Chalmers).
Regarding claim 1, Nelson 363 teaches a method of preparing an electrochemically active cathode material (see [0005]), comprising: (a) combining a compound (see [0059] various compounds such as nickel material) with a fluid composition (see [0059], stirred slurry implies fluid composition) including a chemical oxidant (see [0059] chemical oxidant) comprising a peroxydisulfate salt (see [0059]), a monopersulfate salt, or a combination thereof to form a mixture (see [0059] a stirred slurry/mixture); (b) heating the mixture (see [0059] heating the mixture) for a period of time sufficient to react (see [0059]) the mixture having a total nickel (Ni) content (mixture has unspecified amount of nickel in mixture, implying an unspecified total amount of nickel); but fails to teach in the embodiment of [0059], (c) adding to the mixture of step (b) a mineral acid, and treating for at least a period of time sufficient to form an additional amount of the Ni(IV)-containing alkali metal-deficient layered nickel oxide electrochemically active cathode material, the Ni(IV)-containing alkali metal-deficient layered nickel oxide electrochemically active cathode material formed during steps (b) and (d) having a general formula. See 112 rejection above for interpretation.
However, the embodiment of [0061] of Nelson 363 teaches (c) adding to the mixture of step (b) (see [0061] shows in some embodiments in order to get a Ni(IV) cathode active material requires treating precursor material) a mineral acid (see [0063]), and treating for at least a period of time sufficient to form an additional amount of the Ni(IV)-containing alkali metal-deficient layered nickel oxide electrochemically active cathode material (see [0061] treatment with mineral acid removes Lithium ions, making a alkali metal deficient Ni(IV)-containing cathode active material, suggesting anytime of treatment will cause the formation), the Ni(IV)-containing alkali metal-deficient layered nickel oxide electrochemically active cathode material (see [0061]) formed during steps (b) and (d) having a general formula (see [0063] for general formula).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the embodiment of [0059] to add a mineral acid to the mixture of embodiment of [0059] as taught by the embodiment of [0061] of Nelson 363. Further, it has been held that combining two embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other in a prior art patent does not require a leap of inventiveness and involves only routine skill in the art. Further Nelson 363 teaches that modifications can be made (see [0085] of Nelson 363).
Nelson 363 fails to teach, the initial compound being an alkali metal-containing layered nickel oxide having a formula A.sub.1−aNi.sub.1+aO.sub.2, wherein A comprises an alkali metal and 0<a≤0.2; (b) heating the mixture at a temperature in a range of about 45oC to about 60oC and forming a Ni(IV)-containing mixture, the Ni(IV)-containing mixture comprising a Ni(IV)-containing alkali metal-deficient layered nickel oxide electrochemically active cathode material; (c) the mixture of step (b) being a Ni(IV) containing mixture; adding the mineral acid at the temperature of step (b), and wherein the mineral acid is added in an amount of about 0.40 to about 0.60 moles per mole of total nickel; (d) heating the mixture of step (c) to a temperature in a range of about 60oC to about 80oC; or the electrochemically active cathode material formed during steps (b) and (d) having a general formula A.sub.xH.sub.yNi.sub.1+aO.sub.2: wherein A comprises an alkali metal; 0.08≤x<0.2; 0≤y<0.3; and 0.02<a≤0.2.
However, Nelson 363 teaches (b) heating the mixture at a temperature in a range of about 45oC to about 60oC (50oC to 80oC, see [0059]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the temperature range of about 50oC to about 80oC as taught by Nelson 363, to stay between 50oC and 60oC as it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists “in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” (MPEP 2144.05.I). Further Nelson 363 teaches that modifications can be made (see [0085] of Nelson 363).
Nelson 363 fails to teach the initial compound being an alkali metal-containing layered nickel oxide having a formula A.sub.1−aNi.sub.1+aO.sub.2, wherein A comprises an alkali metal and 0<a≤0.2; (b) chemically oxidizing/delithiating the compound using a peroxydisulfate salt to form a Ni(IV)-containing alkali metal-deficient layered nickel oxide electrochemically active cathode material, the mixture of step (b) being a Ni(IV) containing mixture,; and the Ni(IV)-containing alkali deficient layered nickel oxide electrochemically active cathode material formed during steps (b) and (d) having a general formula A.sub.xH.sub.yNi.sub.1+aO.sub.2: wherein A comprises an alkali metal; 0.08≤x<0.2; 0≤y<0.3; and 0.02<a≤0.2.
However, Nelson 361 teaches a method of preparing an electrochemically active cathode material (see [0047] teaches the alpha-delithiated layered nickel oxide can be used as an electrochemically active cathode material, see [0057] relates to teaching a method of preparing), where the initial compound is an alkali metal-containing layered nickel oxide having a formula A.sub.1−aNi.sub.1+aO.sub.2 (see [0056]), wherein A comprises an alkali metal (see [0056] A is Lithium) and 0<a≤0.2 (see [0056] 0.02≤a<0.2) and (b) chemically oxidizing/delithiating the compound using a peroxydisulfate salt (see [0057]) to form a Ni(IV)-containing alkali metal-deficient layered nickel oxide electrochemically active cathode material (see [0057] and [0047] teaches the alpha-delithiated layered nickel oxide can be used as an electrochemically active cathode material), the mixture of step (b) being a Ni(IV) containing mixture (see [0044] alpha-delithiated layered nickel oxide is Ni(IV) containing), and the Ni(IV)-containing alkali deficient layered nickel oxide electrochemically active cathode material formed during steps (b) and (d) having a general formula A.sub.xH.sub.yNi.sub.1+aO.sub.2: wherein A comprises an alkali metal; 0.08≤x<0.2; 0≤y<0.3; and 0.02<a≤0.2. (see [0057]).
Nelson 363 in view of Nelson 361 fails to teach wherein the mineral acid is added in an amount of about 0.40 to about 0.60 moles per mole of total nickel. However, Nelson 361 further teaches wherein the mineral acid (see [0058] equation 1 of Nelson 361) is added in an amount of about 0 to about 1 moles per mole of total nickel (see [0058] of Nelson 361). (For example: If y=0.25, Equation 1 = LiNiO.sub.2 + 0.5H.sub.2SO.sub.4.fwdarw.0.75Li.sub.0.67NiO.sub.2 + 0.25NiSO.sub.4 + 0.25Li.sub.2SO.sub.4 + 0.5H.sub.2O)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Nelson 363 in view of Nelson 361 to substitute the mineral acid as taught by Nelson 363 in view of Nelson 361 for the mineral acid added in an amount of about 0 to 1 moles per mole of total nickel as further taught by Nelson 361 as an art effective equivalent for delithiating lithium nickelate compounds (see [0058] equation 1 of Nelson 361). Further Nelson 363 in view of Nelson 361 teaches that modifications can be made (see [0085] of Nelson 363).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the mineral acid added in an amount of about 0 to 1 moles per mole of total nickel as taught by Nelson 363 in view of Nelson 361 to stay between about 0.4 and about 0.6 moles of mineral acid per mole of nickel as the claimed range lies inside the range taught by Nelson 363 in view of Nelson 361 and further the ratio of mineral acid to total nickel is a result effective variable for the amount of lithium removed and amount of Ni(IV) species preserved in the layered structure (see [0058] equation 1 of Nelson 361). Further Nelson 363 in view of Nelson 361 teaches that modifications can be made (see [0085] of Nelson 363).
Nelson 363 in view of Nelson 361 fails to teach adding the mineral acid at the temperature of step (b) or (d) heating the mixture of step (c) to a temperature in a range of about 60oC to about 80oC.
However, Chalmers teaches adding the mineral acid (sulfuric acid, see pg. 15, para. 5.2) at the temperature of step (b) (40oC, and 60oC, Fig. 17) and (d) heating the mixture of step (c) to a temperature in a range of about 60oC to about 80oC (40oC and 60oC, Fig. 17).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Nelson 363 in view of Nelson 361 such that the mineral acid is added at the temperature of 40oC, or 60oC which lies near or inside the claimed range and further obvious to modify the time to be within the claimed range as temperature is a result effective variable of leaching efficiency of lithium (see pg. 21, Fig. 17 of Chalmers) as taught by Chalmers to achieve very high leaching efficiency (see pg. 24, para. 8 of Chalmers). Further Nelson 363 in view Nelson 361 teaches that modifications can be made (see [0085] of Nelson 363).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Nelson 363 in view of Nelson 361 such that the mixture is heated after adding mineral acid to a temperature of 40oC or 60oC which lies near or inside the claimed range and further obvious to modify the time to be within the claimed range as temperature is a result effective variable of leaching efficiency of lithium (see pg. 21, Fig. 17 of Chalmers) as taught by Chalmers to achieve very high leaching efficiency (see pg. 24, para. 8 of Chalmers). Further Nelson 363 in view Nelson 361 teaches that modifications can be made (see [0085] of Nelson 363).
Regarding claim 2, Nelson 363 in view of Nelson 361 and further in view of Chalmers fails to teach in this embodiment wherein the alkali metal-containing layered nickel oxide is doped with a metal, M, and fails to teach the alkali metal-containing layered nickel oxide has a formula A.sub.1−aNi.sub.1+a−zM.sub.zO.sub.2, wherein A comprises an alkali metal, 0<a≤0.2, and 0≤z≤0.2.
However, Nelson 361 further teaches an alkali metal-containing layered nickel oxide (see [0056] lithium nickelate) is doped with a metal, M, (metal dopant, see [0056]) such that the alkali metal-containing layered nickel oxide (see [0056] lithium nickelate) has a formula A.sub.1−aNi.sub.1+a−zM.sub.zO.sub.2 (see [0056]), wherein A comprises an alkali metal (see [0056] A is Lithium), 0<a≤0.2 (see [0056] 0.02≤a<0.2), and 0≤z≤0.2 (see [0056]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Nelson 363 in view of Nelson 361 and further in view of Chalmers to incorporate a metal dopant such that it has a formula A.sub.1−aNi.sub.1+a−zM.sub.zO.sub.2 as further taught by Nelson 361 for the benefit of preventing formation of gamma-nickel oxyhydroxide during treatment with alkaline solution (see [0056] of Nelson 361). Further Nelson 363 in view of Nelson 361 and further in view of Chalmers teaches that modifications can be made (see [0085] of Nelson 363).
Regarding claim 3, Nelson 363 in view of Nelson 361 and further in view of Chalmers teaches wherein the oxidant comprises peroxydisulfate salt (see [0059]).
Regarding claim 5, Nelson 363 in view of Nelson 361 and further in view of Chalmers teaches wherein A comprises Li (A is Lithium, see [0056] of Nelson 361, see modification above).
Regarding claim 15, Nelson 363 in view of Nelson 361 and further in view of Chalmers remains as applied to claim 1 and teaches wherein in step (b) the period of time sufficient to form the Ni(IV) containing mixture is about 15 minutes to about 6 hours (12 to 20 hours, see [0059]). (The examiner would like to note that the recitation “at least” in claim 1, lines 7-8 before the “period of time” shows the range can be greater than about 15 minutes to about 6 hours as claimed in claim 15). See 112 rejection above for interpretation.
Regarding claim 18, Nelson 363 in view of Nelson 361 and further in view of Chalmers fails to teach wherein in step (d) the period of time sufficient to form the Ni(IV) containing alkali metal-deficient layered nickel oxide electrochemically active cathode material is about 1 hour to about 6 hours. See 112 rejection above for interpretation.
However, Chalmers further teaches wherein in step (d) the period of time sufficient to form the Ni(IV) containing alkali metal-deficient layered nickel oxide electrochemically active cathode material is about 1 hour to about 6 hours (5min – 120 min, see pg. 19, Fig. 13).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Nelson 363 in view of Nelson 361 in view of Chalmers such that the treatment with mineral acid is between 5 min and 120 min and obvious to optimize the range to stay within the claimed range as time of treatment with mineral acid is a result effective variable of leaching efficiency of lithium (see pg. 19, Fig. 13 of Chalmers) as taught by Chalmers to achieve very high leaching efficiency (see pg. 24, para. 8). Further Nelson 363 in view of Nelson 361 and further in view of Chalmers teaches that modifications can be made (see [0085] of Nelson 363).
Regarding claim 20, Nelson 363 in view of Nelson 361 and further in view of Chalmers teaches wherein in step (c) the mineral acid comprises sulfuric acid (see [0055]), nitric acid (see [0055]), hydrochloric acid (see [0055]), hydrobromic acid, perchloric acid, hydroiodic acid, or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 24, Nelson 363 in view of Nelson 361 and further in view of Chalmers fails to teach wherein in step (a) the oxidant is provided in an amount between about 0.25 and 0.70 moles per mole of the alkali metal-containing layered nickel oxide.
However, Nelson 363 in view of Nelson 361 and further in view of Chalmers does teach a range of greater than 1 mole of oxidant per mole of the alkali metal-containing layered nickel oxide (see [0059], excess of peroxydisulfate). Further, it has been held that “generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical” (MPEP 2144.05 IIA).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the moles of oxidant added per mole of alkali metal-containing layered nickel oxide as taught by Nelson 363 in view of Nelson 361 and further in view of Chalmers to be between about 0.25 and about 0.7 moles of oxidant per mole of alkali metal-containing layered nickel oxide as a prima facie case of obviousness exists “where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close” (MPEP 2144.05.I) and to find the range through routine optimization for the purpose of adding enough peroxydisulfate to make the reaction happen (see [0059], excess of peroxydisulfate, which suggests adding enough to make the reaction happen). Further Nelson 363 in view of Nelson 361 and further in view of Chalmers teaches that modifications can be made (see [0085] of Nelson 363).
Regarding claim 27, Nelson 363 in view of Nelson 361 and further in view of Chalmers fails to teach wherein in step (b) the temperature is in a range of about 45° C. to about 55° C. However, Nelson 363 in view of Nelson 361 and further in view of Chalmers teaches heating the mixture in a range of 50-60oC (see modification of Nelson 363 in claim 1 rejection above). Further, it has been held that “generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art” (MPEP 2144.05 IIA).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the temperature range of 50-60oC as taught by Nelson 363 in view of Nelson 361 and further in view of Chalmers to stay between about 50 and about 55oC as a prima facie case of obviousness exists “in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” (MPEP 2144.05.I). Further Nelson 363 in view of Nelson 361 and further in view of Chalmers teaches that modifications can be made (see [0085] of Nelson 363).
Regarding claim 28, Nelson 363 in view of Nelson 361 and further in view of Chalmers fails to teach wherein in step (c) the mineral acid is provided in an amount of about 0.40 to about 0.55 moles per mole of the total nickel. However, Nelson 363 in view of Nelson 361 and further in view of Chalmers teaches the mineral acid is provided in an amount of about 0.40 to about 0.60 moles per mole of the total nickel (see modification of Nelson 363 in claim 1 rejection above).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the mineral acid added in an amount of about 0.40 to about 0.60 moles per mole of total nickel as taught by Nelson 363 in view of Nelson 361 and further in view of Chalmers to stay between about 0.4 and about 0.55 moles of mineral acid per mole of nickel as the claimed range lies inside the range taught by Nelson 363 in view of Nelson 361 and further in view of Chalmers and further the ratio of mineral acid to total nickel is a result effective variable for the amount of lithium removed and amount of Ni(IV) species preserved in the layered structure (see [0058] equation 1 of Nelson 361). Further Nelson 363 in view of Nelson 361 and further in view of Chalmers teaches that modifications can be made (see [0085] of Nelson 363).
Regarding claim 32, Nelson 363 in view of Nelson 361 and further in view of Chalmers fails to teach wherein in step (a) the oxidant is provided in an amount in a range of about 1 to about 2 moles of oxidant per mole of the alkali metal-containing layered nickel oxide. However, Nelson 363 in view of Nelson 361 and further in view of Chalmers does teach adding enough peroxydisulfate to make the reaction happen, and an overlapping range of an excess of peroxydisulfate (see [0059], excess of peroxydisulfate).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the range of oxidant as taught by Nelson 363 in view of Nelson 361 and further in view of Chalmers to stay between about 1 to about 2 moles of oxidant per mole of alkali metal-containing layered nickel oxide a prima facie case of obviousness exists “in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” (MPEP 2144.05.I). Further Nelson 363 in view of Nelson 361 and further in view of Chalmers teaches that modifications can be made (see [0085] of Nelson 363).
Regarding claim 41, Nelson 363 in view of Nelson 361 and further in view of Chalmers fails to teach wherein in step (a) the alkali metal-containing layered nickel oxide and the oxidant are provided in a molar ratio of about 1 mol alkali metal-containing layered nickel oxide:0.25 mol oxidant to about 1 mol alkali metal-containing layered nickel oxide:0.70 mol oxidant (also expressed as “1:0.25 to about 1:0.70”).
However, Nelson 363 in view of Nelson 361 and further in view of Chalmers does teach a range of greater than 1 mole of oxidant per mole of the alkali metal-containing layered nickel oxide (see [0059], excess of peroxydisulfate). Further, it has been held that “generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical” (MPEP 2144.05 IIA).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the moles of oxidant added per mole of alkali metal-containing layered nickel oxide as taught by Nelson 363 in view of Nelson 361 and further in view of Chalmers to be about 0.25 and about 0.7 moles of oxidant per mole of alkali metal-containing layered nickel oxide as a prima facie case of obviousness exists “where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close” (MPEP 2144.05.I) and to find the range through routine optimization for the purpose of adding enough peroxydisulfate to make the reaction happen (see [0059], excess of peroxydisulfate, which suggests adding enough to make the reaction happen). Further Nelson 363 in view of Nelson 361 and further in view of Chalmers teaches that modifications can be made (see [0085] of Nelson 363).
Regarding claim 42, Nelson 363 in view of Nelson 361 and further in view of Chalmers teaches wherein in step (a) the fluid composition has a pH in a range of about 4 to 12 (see [0059] pH of 8 to 12).
Regarding claim 45, Nelson 363 in view of Nelson 361 and further in view of Chalmers fails to teach treating the Ni(IV)-containing alkali metal-deficient nickel oxide with an aqueous solution of an alkali hydroxide to form a compound according to the formula: A.sub.xA′.sub.vNi.sub.1+aO.sub.2.nH.sub.2O or A.sub.xA′.sub.vNi.sub.1+a−zM.sub.zO.sub.2.nH.sub.2O, wherein A comprises Li, or Na; M comprises a transition metal; A′ comprises K, Rb or Cs; 0.04≤x<0.2; 0.03<v<0.20; 0.02≤a≤0.2; 0≤z≤0.2; and 0<n<2.
However, Nelson 361 teaches treating a Ni(IV)-containing alkali metal-deficient nickel oxide (see [0059] treatment of non-stoichiometric alpha-delithiated layered nickel oxide) with an aqueous solution of an alkali hydroxide (see [0059] treated with alkali salt, an example is alkali hydroxide solution) to form a compound according to the formula: Li.sub.xA.sub.yNi.sub.1+a-zM.sub.zO.sub.2.nH.sub.2O (see [0059]), M comprises a transition metal (see [0059]); A comprises K (see [0059]), Rb (see [0059]) or Cs (see [0059]); 0.02<x<0.2 (see [0059]); 0.03<y<0.20 (see [0059]); 0.02≤a≤0.2 (see [0059]); 0≤z≤0.2 (see [0059]); and 0<n<1 (see [0059]). The alkali hydroxide (see [0059]) comprises potassium hydroxide (see [0059]), rubidium hydroxide (see [0059]), cesium hydroxide (see [0059]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Nelson 363 in view of Nelson 361 and further in view of Chalmers to incorporate treating the Ni(IV)-containing alkali metal-deficient nickel oxide with an aqueous solution of an alkali hydroxide as further taught by Nelson 361 for the benefit of stabilizing and substantially decreasing the rate of oxygen evolution reaction and thereby increase the capacity retention after storage. Further Nelson 363 in view of Nelson 361 and further in view of Chalmers teaches that modifications can be made (see [0085] of Nelson 363).
In the embodiment as described, Nelson 361 in view of Nelson 363 and further in view of Chalmers fails to teach 0.04≤x<0.2.
However, in a different embodiment Nelson 361 teaches 0.05≤x<0.15 (see [0023] of Nelson 361).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Nelson 363 in view of Nelson 361 and further in view of Chalmers to substitute the range of x as taught Nelson 363 in view of Nelson 361 and further in view of Chalmers for the range 0.05≤x<0.15 as taught by a different embodiment of Nelson 361 as it has been held that combining two embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other in a prior art patent does not require a leap of inventiveness and involves only routine skill in the art. Further Nelson 363 in view of Nelson 361 and further in view of Chalmers teaches that modifications can be made (see [0085] of Nelson 363).
Regarding claim 46, Nelson 363 in view of Nelson 361 and further in view of Chalmers teaches wherein the alkali hydroxide (see [0059] of Nelson 361 via modification above) comprises potassium hydroxide (see [0059] of Nelson 361 via modification above), rubidium hydroxide (see [0059] of Nelson 361 via modification above), cesium hydroxide (see [0059] of Nelson 361 via modification above) or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 47, Nelson 363 in view of Nelson 361 and further in view of Chalmers teaches wherein A comprises Li (see [0059] of Nelson 361 via modification above) and A′ comprises K (see [0059] of Nelson 361 via modification above).
Regarding claim 50, Nelson 363 in view of Nelson 361 and further in view of Chalmers teaches wherein in step (a) the oxidant comprises a peroxydisulfate salt (see [0059]), in step (b) the mixture is heated to a temperature of about 45° C. to about 55° C (see rejection of claim 27) for about 2 to about 4 hours (cited art remains as applied to claim 1, 12 to 20 hours, see [0059]) (The examiner would like to note that the recitation “at least” in claim 1, lines 7-8 before the “period of time” shows the range can be greater than about 2 to about 4 hours as claimed in claim 50), in step (c) the mineral acid (see [0055]) comprises sulfuric acid (see [0055]), but fails to teach the oxidant is provided in an amount of about 0.25 to about 0.45 moles per mole of the alkali metal-containing layered nickel oxide however, Nelson 363 in view of Nelson 361 and further in view of Chalmers does teach adding enough peroxydisulfate to make the reaction happen (see [0059], excess of peroxydisulfate).
Further, it has been held that “generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical” (MPEP 2144.05 IIA), and that a prima facie case of obviousness exists “where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close” (MPEP 2144.05.I). Further Nelson 363 in view of Nelson 361 and further in view of Chalmers teaches that modifications can be made (see [0085] of Nelson 363).
Nelson 363 in view of Nelson 361 and further in view of Chalmers fails to teach in step (c) the mineral acid is provided in an amount of about 0.4 to about 0.55 moles per mole of the total nickel. However, Nelson 363 in view of Nelson 361 and further in view of Chalmers teaches the mineral acid is provided in an amount of about 0 to about 1 moles per mole of total nickel (see modification of Nelson 363 in claim 1 above) and the amount of mineral acid added per mole of nickel is a result effective variable for the amount of lithium removed and amount of Ni(IV) species preserved in the layered structure (see [0058] equation 1 of Nelson 361 in modification of Nelson 363 above).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the mineral acid added in an amount of about 0 to 1 moles per mole of total nickel as taught by Nelson 363 in view of Nelson 361 and further in view of Chalmers to stay between about 0.4 and about 0.55 moles of mineral acid per mole of nickel as the claimed range lies inside the range taught by Nelson 363 in view of Nelson 361 and further in view of Chalmers and the ratio of mineral acid to total nickel is a result effective variable for the amount of lithium removed and amount of Ni(IV) species preserved in the layered structure (see [0058] equation 1 of Nelson 361 modification of Nelson 363 above). Further Nelson 363 in view of Nelson 361 and further in view of Chalmers teaches that modifications can be made (see [0085] of Nelson 363).
Nelson 363 in view of Nelson 361 and further in view of Chalmers fails to teach in step (d) the mixture is heated to a temperature of about 65° C. to about 75° C. however, Nelson 363 in view of Nelson 361 and further in view of Chalmers teaches heating the mixture to 60oC (see modification of Nelson 363 in view of Nelson 361 in claim 1 above). Further, it has been held that “generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical” (MPEP 2144.05 IIA), and that a prima facie case of obviousness exists “where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close” (MPEP 2144.05.I). Further Nelson 363 in view of Nelson 361 and further in view of Chalmers teaches that modifications can be made (see [0085] of Nelson 363).
Nelson 363 in view of Nelson 361 and further in view of Chalmers fails to teach in step (d) the mixture is heated for about 2 to about 4 hours.
However, Chalmers further teaches the leaching efficiency of Li reaches 100% after 2 hours (see Page 19, Figure 13).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Nelson 363 in view of Nelson 361 and further in view of Chalmers to add the time sufficient to form the Ni(IV) containing alkali metal-deficient layered nickel oxide electrochemically active cathode material to be 2 hours as further taught by Chalmers for the benefit of achieving 100% leaching efficiency of Lithium (see Page 19, Figure 13). Further Nelson 363 in view of Nelson 361 and further in view of Chalmers teaches that modifications can be made (see [0085] of Nelson 363). See 112 rejection above for interpretation.
Regarding claim 51, Nelson 361 teaches a method of preparing an electrochemically active cathode material (see [0005]), comprising: (i) reacting a compound (see [0059] various compounds such as nickel material), and a chemical oxidant (see [0059] chemical oxidant) comprising a peroxydisulfate salt (see [0059]), a monopersulfate salt, or a combination thereof, in a fluid composition (see [0059] a stirred slurry/mixture) at an elevated temperature (see [0059] heating the mixture) heating the mixture for at least a period of time (see [0059] 12-20 hours) the mixture having a total nickel (Ni) content (mixture has unspecified amount of nickel in mixture, implying an unspecified total amount of nickel); but fails to teach in this embodiment (ii) reacting the mixture of step (i) with a mineral acid, for at least a period of time sufficient to form an amount of a Ni(IV)-containing alkali metal-deficient layered nickel oxide electrochemically active cathode material; Nelson 363 fails to teach heating the mixture in a range of about 45oC to about 60oC.
However in another embodiment Nelson 363 teaches (ii) reacting the mixture of step (i) with a mineral acid (see [0063]), for at least a period of time sufficient to form an amount of a Ni(IV)-containing alkali metal-deficient layered nickel oxide electrochemically active cathode material see [0061] treatment with mineral acid removes Lithium ions, making a alkali metal deficient Ni(IV)-containing cathode active material, suggesting anytime of treatment will cause the formation).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the embodiment described of Nelson 363 to treat the first mixture with a mineral acid as taught by another embodiment of Chalmers. Further, it has been held that combining two embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other in a prior art patent does not require a leap of inventiveness and involves only routine skill in the art. Further Nelson 363 teaches that modifications can be made (see [0085] of Nelson 363).
Nelson 363 fails to teach heating the mixture in a range of about 45oC to about 60oC. However, Nelson 363 teaches heating the mixture at a temperature in a range of about 50oC to about 80oC (see [0059]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the temperature range of about 50oC to about 80oC as taught by Nelson 363, to stay between 50oC and 60oC as it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists “in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” (MPEP 2144.05.I). Further Nelson 363 teaches that modifications can be made (see [0085] of Nelson 363).
Nelson 363 fails to teach reacting an alkali metal-containing layered nickel oxide having a formula A.sub.1−aNi.sub.1+aO.sub.2, wherein A comprises an alkali metal and 0<a≤0.2, forming a Ni(IV)-containing mixture, the Ni(IV)-containing mixture comprising a Ni(IV)-containing alkali metal-deficient layered nickel oxide electrochemically active cathode material, wherein the mineral acid is added in an amount of about 0.40 moles to about 0.60 moles per mole of total nickel, adding the mineral acid at an elevated temperature in a range of about 60oC to about 80oC, the Ni(IV)-containing alkali metal-deficient layered nickel oxide electrochemically active cathode material formed during steps (i) and (ii) having the general formula A.sub.xH.sub.yNi.sub.1+aO.sub.2: wherein A comprises an alkali metal; 0.08≤x<0.2; 0≤y<0.3; and 0.02<a≤0.2.
Nelson 361 teaches a method of preparing an electrochemically active cathode material (see [0047] teaches the alpha-delithiated layered nickel oxide can be used as an electrochemically active cathode material, see [0057] relates to teaching a method of preparing), where the initial precursor compound is an alkali metal-containing layered nickel oxide having a formula A.sub.1−aNi.sub.1+aO.sub.2 (see [0057] using a non-stoichiometric lithium nickelate which has a formula seen in [0045]), wherein A comprises an alkali metal (see [0045] A is Lithium) and 0<a≤0.2 (see [0045] 0.02≤a≤0.2) and chemically oxidizing/delithiating the compound using a peroxydisulfate salt (see [0057]) and forming a Ni(IV)-containing alkali metal-deficient layered nickel oxide electrochemically active cathode material having the general formula Li.sub.xH.sub.wNi.sub.1+aO.sub.2 0.02≤x≤0.2, 0≤w≤0.2, and 0.02≤a≤0.2 (see [0057]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Nelson 363 to substitute the initial compound used in step (i) as taught by Nelson 363 for the initial compound as taught by Nelson 361 as an art effective equivalent lithium nickel precursor for the same purpose of chemically oxidizing to form a Ni(IV)-containing alkali metal-deficient layered nickel oxide (see [0057] of Nelson 361). Further Nelson 363 teaches that modifications can be made (see [0085]).
Nelson 363 in view of Nelson 361 fails to teach wherein the mineral acid is added in an amount of about 0.40 to about 0.60 moles per mole of total nickel. However, Nelson 361 further teaches wherein the mineral acid (see [0058] equation 1 of Nelson 361) is added in an amount of about 0 to about 1 moles per mole of total nickel (see [0058] of Nelson 361). (For example: If y=0.25, Equation 1 = LiNiO.sub.2 + 0.5H.sub.2SO.sub.4.fwdarw.0.75Li.sub.0.67NiO.sub.2 + 0.25NiSO.sub.4 + 0.25Li.sub.2SO.sub.4 + 0.5H.sub.2O)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Nelson 363 in view of Nelson 361 to substitute the mineral acid as taught by Nelson 363 in view of Nelson 361 for the mineral acid added in an amount of about 0 to 1 moles per mole of total nickel as further taught by Nelson 361 as an art effective equivalent for delithiating lithium nickelate compounds (see [0058] equation 1 of Nelson 361). Further Nelson 363 in view of Nelson 361 teaches that modifications can be made (see [0085] of Nelson 363).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the mineral acid added in an amount of about 0 to 1 moles per mole of total nickel as taught by Nelson 363 in view of Nelson 361 to stay between about 0.4 and about 0.6 moles of mineral acid per mole of nickel as the claimed range lies inside the range taught by Nelson 363 in view of Nelson 361 and further the ratio of mineral acid to total nickel is a result effective variable for the amount of lithium removed and amount of Ni(IV) species preserved in the layered structure (see [0058] equation 1 of Nelson 361). Further Nelson 363 in view of Nelson 361 teaches that modifications can be made (see [0085] of Nelson 363).
Nelson 363 in view of Nelson 361 fails to teach adding the mineral acid at an elevated temperature
However, Chalmers teaches adding the mineral acid (sulfuric acid, see pg. 15, para. 5.2) at an elevated temperature in a range of about 60oC to about 80oC. (40oC and 60oC, Fig. 17).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Nelson 363 in view of Nelson 361 such that the mineral acid is added at the temperature of 40oC, or 60oC which lies near or inside the claimed range and obvious to modify the time to be within the claimed range as temperature is a result effective variable of leaching efficiency of Lithium (see pg. 21, Fig. 17) as taught by Chalmers to achieve very high leaching efficiency (see pg. 24, para. 8 of Chalmers). Further Nelson 363 in view Nelson 361 teaches that modifications can be made (see [0085] of Nelson 363).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 7, paragraphs 7-9 and page 8, paragraphs 1-2, filed 02/17/2026, with respect to claims 1-3, 5, 15, 18, 20, 24, 27-28, 32, 41-42, 45-47, and 50-51 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 15, 18, 20, 24, 27-28, 32, 41-42, 45-47, and 50-51 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 8, paragraph 3-5, and pg. 9, paragraph 1-3, filed 02/17/2026, with respect to claims 15 and 18 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 15 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 02/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument that the combined teachings of Nelson 363 and Nelson 361 in view of Chalmers is improper because Chalmers is non-analogous art because it is not from the relevant field of endeavor because methods of dissolving battery materials and methods of preparing battery materials are in different fields of endeavor. The Examiner respectfully disagrees as the applicant has chosen to view the field of endeavor in a very narrow scope and in fact the two field of endeavor pointed out by the applicant show a similar field of endeavor as both references deal with methods of treating or interacting with battery materials. Further, both applications deal with conditions for treating battery materials with mineral acids.
Regarding applicant’s argument that the combined teachings of Nelson 363 and Nelson 361 in view of Chalmers is improper because Chalmers is non-analogous art because it is not reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This argument is moot, as determining if prior art is analogous only requires the reference being from a relevant field of endeavor or pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor and as described above Chalmers is in a relevant field of endeavor therefore it is analogous art regardless of if the prior art is pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor.
Regarding applicant’s argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to modify the methods of Nelson 361 and/or Nelson 363 in view of Chalmers because the objectives of Chalmers are directly contradictory to Nelson 361 and Nelson 363 as one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the conditions taught by Chalmers to destroy the cathode material that Nelson 363 and Nelson 361 seek to create. The Examiner respectfully disagrees as seen in [0055] of Nelson 363 teaches treating battery materials with mineral acid allows removal of nearly all of the lithium ions in the interlayer regions. Further, Chalmers is also directed to treatment of battery materials with mineral acids to leach different battery materials and shows specific example showing increased lithium leaching efficiency vs other metals at different temperatures and concentrations of acids, and in page 11 under Leaching, Chalmers teaches there are several parameters such as concentration, leaching media, pH, solid to liquid phase ratio, temperature, and etc which influence the leaching efficiency of different metals. Therefore it would be obvious for one of ordinary skills in the art to turn to Chalmers to look for parameters which would lead to increased lithium leaching efficiency while maintaining other parameters as taught by Nelson 363 and/or Nelson 361 to remove interlayer lithium ions without dissolving all of the battery materials treated with mineral acid.
Regarding applicant’s arguments that one of ordinary skill in the art seeking to preserve nickel in the layered oxide structure would understand from Chalmers that increasing temperature would promote undesirable nickel dissolution and actively teaches away from such modification that elevated temperatures will cause nickel dissolution. The Examiner respectfully disagrees as first it is not for the applicant to decide what one of ordinary skill would and would not determine as reasonable motivation to combine. Further, in page 11 under Leaching, Chalmers teaches there are several parameters such as concentration, leaching media, pH, solid to liquid phase ratio, temperature, and etc which influence the leaching efficiency of different metals. Therefore it would be obvious for one of ordinary skills in the art to turn to Chalmers to look for parameters which would lead to increased lithium leaching efficiency while maintaining other parameters as taught by Nelson 363 and/or Nelson 361 to remove interlayer lithium ions without dissolving all of the battery materials treated with mineral acid. Further as seen in Fig. 11-13, the leaching efficiency of lithium is significantly higher than the leaching efficiency of nickel, cobalt, and manganese with all other parameters maintained the same way, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art can see that different conditions will help increase the leaching efficiency of lithium without necessarily increasing the leaching efficiency of components such as nickel to the same degree given all conditions kept the same.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS CALEB MARROQUIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0166. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30-5:00 EST.
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 at 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.
/DOUGLAS C MARROQUIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights