DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 October 1, 2025, has been entered. Claims 1-15 are pending in the application with claims 9-15 previously withdrawn from consideration.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 26, 2024, was considered and returned to Applicant with the Office action mailed on April 22, 2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 10 of claim 1 should include a space here: “is 11.0”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2019106240 A (Oshita ‘240 – citing to the previously attached English translation) in view of US 20170338486 A1 (Kawakita ‘486), and further in view of KR 20190036525 A (Kaneda ‘348 – citing to US 20190296348 A1 as an English translation, as provided in the IDS filed on September 3, 2025).
Regarding claim 1, Oshita ‘240 teaches a nickel composite hydroxide that is a precursor of a positive electrode active material of a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery, comprising Ni, Co, and one or more additive metal elements M selected from the group consisting of Mn, Al, Fe, and Ti (a nickel-cobalt-aluminum composite hydroxide containing nickel, cobalt, and aluminum, which is a precursor of a positive electrode active material, par. 17, for a secondary battery including a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery, par. 3).
Oshita ‘240 does not explicitly teach that when a peak intensity of a diffraction peak appearing in a range of 2θ = 8.0 ± 2.0° in powder X-ray diffraction measurement using CuKα rays is defined as α, and a peak intensity of a diffraction peak appearing in a range of 2θ = 19.0 ± 2.0° in powder X-ray diffraction measurement using CuKα rays is defined as β, of the nickel composite hydroxide having a secondary particle diameter having a cumulative volume percentage of 90% by volume (D90) or more, a value of β/α is 11.0 or less.
Nevertheless, regarding composition claims, if the composition is the same, it must have the same properties (see MPEP § 2112.01, II.). Specifically, Oshita ‘240 teaches that the nickel-cobalt-aluminum composite hydroxide is, for example, Ni1-x-yCoxAly, wherein 0.05≤x≤0.35 and 0.01≤y≤0.20 (par. 24). In example 1, the molar ratio of the slurry is equal to Ni0.81Co0.16Al0.03 (par. 152). The above molar ratio falls within the disclosed nickel composite hydroxide in paragraph [0017] and [0018] of the present specification. Moreover, the specific surface area of the nickel-cobalt-aluminum composite hydroxide is between 30 and 50 m2/g (par. 18). The above range of the specific surface area falls within the disclosed specific surface area in paragraph [0020] of the present specification. Further, the cumulative volume percentage may be 90% by volume (D90), determined from a volume-based distribution measured using a laser diffraction/scattering method (par. 67). The composition of the nickel-cobalt-aluminum hydroxide may be varied to balance capacity, durability, safety, and cost (pars. 48-50). In particular, by appropriately adding cobalt, it is possible to further reduce the expansion and contraction behavior of the crystal lattice due to improvement of the cycle characteristics (par. 49). If aluminum is adjusted to be uniformly distributed inside the particle, capacity reduction can be reduced (par. 50).
Further, Kawakita ‘486 discloses a positive electrode active material for a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery capable of limiting the increase in the direct current resistance (DCR) of the battery which occurs after the battery has been subjected to cycles of charging and discharging ([0008]). The positive electrode active material includes a secondary particle of a lithium transition metal oxide, the secondary particle being formed by coagulation of primary particles of the lithium transition metal oxide ([0009]). The ratio of the amount of Ni included in the lithium transition metal oxide to the total amount of metal elements included in the lithium transition metal oxide which are other than lithium is preferably 80% or more in order to increase the capacity of the positive electrode and the occurrence of a proton-exchange reaction at the interfaces between the primary particles of the lithium transition metal oxide ([0036]). The lithium transition metal oxide may be a lithium-containing nickel cobalt aluminum composite oxide, wherein the molar ratio between nickel, cobalt, and aluminum included may be, for example, 88:9:3 ([0036]), corresponding to the disclosed ratio of Example 1 in Table 1 of the present specification.
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, for the nickel composite hydroxide, as taught by Oshita ‘240, to have a value of β/α of 11.0 or less, when a peak intensity of a diffraction peak appearing in a range of 2θ = 8.0 ± 2.0° in powder X-ray diffraction measurement using CuKα rays is defined as α, and a peak intensity of a diffraction peak appearing in a range of 2θ = 19.0 ± 2.0° in powder X-ray diffraction measurement using CuKα rays is defined as β, of the nickel composite hydroxide having a secondary particle diameter having a cumulative volume percentage of 90% by volume (D90) or more, wherein the molar ratio between nickel, cobalt, and aluminum of the nickel composite hydroxide may be modified to be equal to 88:9:3, to increase the capacity of the positive electrode active material of the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery, as suggested by Kawakita ‘486.
Oshita ‘240 additionally discloses that the particle size ratio, corresponding to the value of ((D90 – D10)/D50), is adjusted to 0.55 or less (par. 63 & 64), wherein D10 is a secondary particle diameter at a cumulative volume percentage of 10%, and D50 is a secondary particle diameter at a cumulative volume percentage of 50% (par. 67).
However, Oshita ‘240 does not disclose that the ((D90 – D10)/D50) value of the nickel composite hydroxide is 0.975 or more.
In the background of Kaneda ‘348, a positive electrode active material for a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery having [(D90 – D10)/an average particle diameter] as an indicator indicating a spread of particle size distribution of up to 0.60 in order to improve cycle characteristics and achieve high output, for example, is disclosed ([0005]). Such an active material causes an electrochemical reaction to uniformly occur and has the advantage of high capacity and long life, but on the other hand, it is low in fillability of the active material and is thus not high in volume energy density ([0005]).
Accordingly, Kaneda ‘348 discloses an exemplary nickel-manganese composite hydroxide NixMnyMz(OH)2+α (referred to as composite hydroxide 1), wherein M may be Co, and the composite hydroxide 1 is used as a precursor material for a positive electrode active material of a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery ([0036] – [0038]). The composite hydroxide 1 preferably has [(D90 – D10)/an average particle diameter] as an indicator indicating a spread of particle size distribution of at least 0.7 ([0045]). The average particle diameter is the volume-average particle diameter MV, which means an average particle diameter weighted in terms of volume ([0046]). This can improve particle fillability and further increase the volume energy density ([0045]). The [(D90 – D10)/an average particle diameter] value can be adjusted to fall within the range by mixing composite hydroxides 1 having different particle diameters together or by producing the composite hydroxide 1 using a continuous crystallization process, for example ([0045]). The upper limit of [(D90 – D10)/an average particle diameter] may be preferably up to 1.2, in view of inhibiting excessive mixing of fine particles or coarse particles into the positive electrode active material ([0045]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the nickel composite hydroxide, as taught by Oshita ‘240, to have a ((D90 – D10)/D50) between 0.7 and 1.2, in seeking to improve particle fillability and further increase volume energy density, as suggested by Kaneda ‘348.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, 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 2, Oshita ‘240 teaches the nickel composite hydroxide according to claim 1, wherein a tap density is 1.50 g/ml or more and 1.90 g/ml or less (the tap density is preferably 1.5 g/cm3 or more; when the tap density is less than 1.5 g/cm3, the filling property is low; [0180] of Toma ‘137).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, 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, Oshita ‘240 teaches the nickel composite hydroxide according to claim 1, wherein a BET specific surface area is 30 m2/g or more and 60 m2/g or less (the specific surface area of the nickel-cobalt-aluminum composite hydroxide is between 30 and 50 m2/g; par. 18 of Oshita ‘240).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, 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, Oshita ‘240 teaches the nickel composite hydroxide according to claim 2, wherein a BET specific surface area is 30 m2/g or more and 60 m2/g or less (the specific surface area of the nickel-cobalt-aluminum composite hydroxide is between 30 and 50 m2/g; par. 18 of Oshita ‘240).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, 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 5, Oshita ‘240 teaches the nickel composite hydroxide according to claim 1, wherein a molar ratio of Ni : Co : M is 1-x-y : x : y, where 0 < x ≤ 0.2 and 0 < y ≤ 0.1 (in example 1, the molar ratio of the slurry is equal to Ni0.81Co0.16Al0.03; par. 151 of Oshita ‘240).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, 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 6, Oshita ‘240 teaches the nickel composite hydroxide according to claim 2, wherein a molar ratio of Ni : Co : M is 1-x-y : x : y, where 0 < x ≤ 0.2 and 0 < y ≤ 0.1 (in example 1, the molar ratio of the slurry is equal to Ni0.81Co0.16Al0.03; par. 152 of Oshita ‘240).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, 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 7, Oshita ‘240 teaches the nickel composite hydroxide according to claim 3, wherein a molar ratio of Ni : Co : M is 1-x-y : x : y, where 0 < x ≤ 0.2 and 0 < y ≤ 0.1 (in example 1, the molar ratio of the slurry is equal to Ni0.81Co0.16Al0.03; par. 151 of Oshita ‘240).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, 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 8, Oshita ‘240 teaches a positive electrode active material of a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery (a nickel-cobalt-aluminum composite hydroxide containing nickel, cobalt, and aluminum, which is a precursor of a positive electrode active material, par. 17, for a secondary battery including a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery, par. 3 of Oshita ‘240), wherein the nickel composite hydroxide according to claim 1 is calcined with a lithium compound (the nickel-cobalt-aluminum composite hydroxide, which is a precursor, is mixed with lithium hydroxide, a lithium compound, to prepare a lithium mixture, par. 144, wherein the lithium mixture is calcined to obtain a lithium nickel cobalt aluminum composite oxide; par. 145 of Oshita ‘240).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 1, 2025, have been fully considered.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 has overcome the previous rejection of record in view of Yamauchi ‘653, because amended claim 1 recites a ((D90 – D10)/D50) value of 0.975 or more, which is outside the disclosed range of 0.7 or less in Yamauchi ‘653.
However, Kaneda ‘348 discloses a composite hydroxide 1 that preferably has [(D90 – D10)/an average particle diameter] as an indicator indicating a spread of particle size distribution of at least 0.7 ([0045]). This can improve particle fillability and further increase the volume energy density ([0045]). The upper limit of [(D90 – D10)/an average particle diameter] may be preferably up to 1.2, in view of inhibiting excessive mixing of fine particles or coarse particles into the positive electrode active material ([0045]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the nickel composite hydroxide, as taught by Oshita ‘240, to have a ((D90 – D10)/D50) between 0.7 and 1.2, in seeking to improve particle fillability and further increase volume energy density, as suggested by Kaneda ‘348.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, 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)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAYLOR H KRONE whose telephone number is (571)270-5064. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM 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, NICOLE BUIE-HATCHER can be reached on 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.
/TAYLOR HARRISON KRONE/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/JONATHAN CREPEAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725