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 .
Priority
Examiner acknowledges Applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 08/08/2019. Examiner further acknowledges Applicant’s PTO/SB38 form filed 01/31/2025 authorizing retrieval of the priority document, Japanese Patent Application No. 2019-144822, and, as of 12/01/2025, the Office has not received a copy of the foreign priority application and that the applicant bears the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that a copy of the foreign priority application is received by the Office from the participating foreign intellectual property office, or a certified copy of the foreign priority application is filed, within the time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.55(g)(1).
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment and arguments, filed 09/18/2025, have been fully considered. Claim(s) 1 and 10 is/are amended; claim(s) 4, 7, and 13 stand(s) as originally or previously presented; and claim(s) 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, and 15 is/are canceled; no new matter has been added. Examiner affirms that the original disclosure provides adequate support for the amendment.
Upon considering said amendment and arguments, the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection set forth in the Office Action mailed 06/18/25 has/have been withdrawn. Applicant’s amendment—specifically that “each” of the nickel composite hydroxide particles is a secondary particle formed by aggregation of a plurality of primary particles—necessitated the new grounds of rejection below relying on Oshita’s broader disclosure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text forming the basis for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 may be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 7, 10, and 13 is/are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oshita et al. (WO 2020153093 A1; citations to English equivalent US 20220102718 A1) (Oshita) in view of Yamaji et al. (US 20170012288 A1; see PTO-892 dated 07/24/24) (Yamaji).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Oshita discloses a positive electrode active material of a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery (e.g., Title), comprising nickel composite hydroxide particles calcined with a lithium compound (by heating precursor in air with LiOH, e.g., ¶ 0199), the composite hydroxide particles having a void ratio of, e.g., 50% (Ex. 2, Table 1), which falls within 45.0–55.0%, wherein each of the nickel composite hydroxide particles is a secondary particle formed by aggregation of a plurality of primary particles (e.g., ¶ 0032, fig. 1).
Oshita further discloses measuring the voids of primary particles within the nickel composite hydroxide particles (per ¶ 0154, the void ratio is the ratio of the area of the black (void) portions in each particle to the total area of the black portions and the white (dense) portions in an SEM image such as FIG. 1; note that the remaining black portions are from resin embedment (¶ 0154) and, thus, not voids between the secondary particles).
Although Oshita fails to explicitly determine the void ratio in terms of both the primary and secondary precursor particles, Oshita discloses substantially similar precursor particles with substantially similar physical characteristics as the instant disclosure’s particles. Specifically, Oshita’s Table 1’s Ex. 2 discloses a Ni0.66Co0.22Mn0.22 hydroxide precursor with specific surface area of 38 m2/g, a D50 of 6.7 μm (average size MV), and (D90–D10/D50) of 0.49. Similarly, the instant specification discloses a high-Ni precursor (e.g., ¶ 0020) with D50 preferably ≥ 5.0 μm (¶ 0021), a (D90–D10/D50) preferably ≥ 0.40 (¶ 0023), and a specific surface area preferably ≥ 30 m2/g (¶ 0024). Additionally, Oshita’s precursor particles were manufactured via crystallization and nucleation using aqueous NaOH, ammonia water, and sulfuric acid for pH adjustment and neutralization (¶ 0203–0209), which appears substantially similar to the instant specification’s method (e.g., Ex. 1, ¶ 0044).
Importantly, the instant specification notes that the instant void ratio may be obtained after compressing the instant precursor particles at 21.2 MPa (¶ 0008). Considering that Oshita is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely NCM hydroxide precursor material, as Oshita discloses 1) substantially similar precursor particles with substantially similar average size, (D90–D10/D50), and surface area—all of which the skilled artisan would understand would influence the void ratio by affecting the particles’ volume—as well as 2) a substantially similar preparation method compared to the instant disclosure, the skilled artisan, before the claimed invention’s effective filing date, would have reasonably expected Oshita’s particles, if compressed as recited after manufacturing, to exhibit a void ratio between both primary and secondary precursor particles encompassing or at least overlapping the recited range (MPEP 2112.01 (I)) such that the artisan could have routinely selected within the overlap with a reasonable expectation of forming a successful precursor with suitable porosity (MPEP 2144.05 (I)), absent evidence otherwise.
Assuming, arguendo, that Oshita’s void ratio failed to necessarily encompass or overlap the recited range, Oshita generally discloses a preferable void ratio of 20–50% because such provides sufficient contact area between the active material and electrolyte while maintaining particle strength and without excessively reducing the active material’s bulk density (¶ 0077). Importantly, Oshita further discloses that electrolyte infiltrates the positive electrode (e.g., ¶ 0187 and implied by reaction between electrolyte solution and active material in, e.g., ¶ 0077 and 0079). One skilled in the art, then, would reasonably recognize that such effects from Oshita’s primary-particle void ratio would extend beyond just within the secondary particles but between them, i.e., the necessary balance between electrolyte penetration and active-material content and, thus, capacity and energy density. To balance proper electrolyte contact area with sufficient particle strength and bulk density—and, more broadly, electrolyte penetration and capacity/energy density—then, it would have been obvious to arrive at the recited range by routinely optimizing the (total) void ratio (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Oshita further discloses the desire for an active material with high filling ability (¶ 0043) but fails to explicitly disclose that the hydroxide particles have an average circularity of 0.85–0.94.
Yamaji, in teaching a nickel-manganese hydroxide cathode precursor particle (Title), teaches controlling the precursor’s average roundness, i.e., circularity, to preferably ≥ 0.83 because such allows the resultant active material’s average roundness to also be within this range—which ultimately improves battery capacity and cycling (¶ 0031)—while improving the filling characteristics (¶ 0061).
Yamaji is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely nickel hydroxide cathode precursors.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Oshita’s precursor with an average circularity of ≥ 0.83, as taught by Yamaji, with the reasonable expectation of achieving a cathode active material and battery with improved capacity and cycling while improving filling characteristics, as taught by Yamaji. It would have been further obvious to routinely select within the overlap (≥ 0.85) with a reasonable expectation of forming a successful precursor with suitable filling and capacity, as suggested by Yamaji (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding claim 4, modified Oshita discloses the nickel composite hydroxide particles according to claim 1, wherein a particle diameter of the nickel composite hydroxide particles having a cumulative volume percentage of 50% by volume (D50) is, e.g., 6.7 μm (MV diameter of Oshita, Table 1, Ex. 2), falling within 5.0–25.0 μm.
Regarding claim 7, modified Oshita discloses nickel composite hydroxide particles according to claim 1, wherein the nickel composite hydroxide particles comprise Ni, Co, and an additive metal element of Mn (Ni0.6Mn0.2Co0.2 hydroxide, Oshita, Ex. 2, ¶ 0210).
Though Oshita narrowly fails to disclose a Ni:Co:Mn ratio satisfying the recited x- and y-values in Ex. 2, Oshita further discloses a general precursor formula of NixMnyCozMt(OH)2+a, where x + y + z + t = 1, 0.20 ≤ x ≤ 0.80, 0.10 ≤ y ≤ 0.90, 0.10 ≤ z ≤ 0.50, 0 ≤ t ≤ 0.10, and 0 ≤ a ≤ 0.5 (¶ 0066); such y and z values overlap the recited M (e.g., Mn) content of 0 < y ≤ 0.1 and Co content of 0 < x ≤ 0.2, respectively.
Importantly, Oshita discloses that nickel-based oxides provide high output with low resistance and excellent cycling (¶ 0004), as well as that y within the above range improves safety and durability without reducing capacity (¶ 0068), while z within the above range reduces the crystal lattice’s expansion and shrinkage without excessively reducing initial discharge capacity and raising costs (¶ 0070). To balance each metal’s effects, then, it would have been obvious to arrive at the recited formula by routinely optimizing the Ni:Co:Mn ratio, including within each overlap (MPEP 2144.05 (II).
Regarding claim 13, modified Oshita discloses a method for producing a positive electrode active material of a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery, comprising a step of adding a lithium compound to the nickel composite hydroxide particles according to claim 1 to obtain a mixture (mixing with LiOH, Oshita, ¶ 0199); and a step of calcining the mixture (heating in air to prepare oxide, Oshita, ¶ 0199).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered. As noted above, Applicant’s specifying that “each” of the nickel composite hydroxide particles is an aggregated secondary particle necessitated the new grounds of rejection relying on Oshita’s broader disclosure, rendering Applicant’s arguments against Oshita’s previously cited embodiment moot.
Additionally, to promote compact prosecution, Examiner respectfully notes that it is unclear that the instant void ratio and circularity yield unexpectedly superior results. Table 2’s one comparative example exhibits both a void ratio and circularity outside the respectively recited ranges, making it unclear if the weaker performance (Table 3) is due to the void ratio, circularity, or both.
Arguendo, if the results were unexpectedly superior, Examiner observes that the results are commensurate with claim 1 at least as follows:
Claim 1 allows any transition metals in the hydroxide particles, whereas Table 1 includes only hydroxides with Ni, Co, and Mn; it is unclear if the results would extend to any Ni-containing hydroxides.
Claim 1 allows any physical characteristics of the hydroxide particles, whereas Table 1 only supports specific values of average particle size, (D90–D10/D50), and specific surface area; it is unclear if the results would occur for particles of any surface area or size (see also density—and, thus, void-ratio—considerations from D50 and (D90–D10/D50) in specification’s ¶ 0021/0023).
Claim 1 is to hydroxide precursor particles, whereas the results stem from incorporating the precursors into cathode active material by calcining with a lithium compound and incorporating the active material into a positive electrode within a lithium secondary battery also including a negative electrode and a liquid electrolyte (e.g., ¶ 0059–0064).
As MPEP 716.02(d) requires unexpected results to be commensurate with the claimed scope, the showing of evidence is further unpersuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JOHN S MEDLEY whose telephone number is (703)756-4600. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 EST M-Th, 9:00-1:00 EST F.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached on 571-270-1292. 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.
/J.S.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 12/1/2025