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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/03/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 12/03/2025 has been entered. Claims 1 and 8 have been amended, claim 2 has been canceled. Claims 1, 3-4, and 7-10 are pending.
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 1 and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dahl et al. (US 20190173084 A1), hereinafter “Dahl”. Dahl et al. is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because it pertains to the same field of endeavor, namely cathode materials and preparation.
In regard to Claim 1, Dahl et al. discloses a method for preparing a cobalt-free cathode material for a lithium-ion battery (Dahl, Paragraph [0005], Examples 1-3), comprising specific examples mixing lithium nickel manganate with a sulfate to obtain a first mixture (Dahl, Paragraph [0011], Examples 1-3). Dahl et al. also discloses wherein the sulfate is a salt of a strong acid and a weak base by providing ammonium sulfate on a short list of preferred alternatives as the sulfate combined with the active material in the mixture before a heat treatment step (Dahl, Paragraph [0040]). Dahl et al. also discloses reacting the first mixture at a predetermined temperature in a range of 700-1200°C to obtain the cobalt-free cathode material (Dahl, Paragraphs [0026-0027]), which anticipates the claimed temperature of 900°C.
Further, Dahl et al. discloses wherein in the first mixture, the mass ratio of sulfur in the sulfate to the lithium nickel manganate is in a range of 1000-16000 ppm (Dahl, Paragraph [0068]) and further discloses when sulfur is >4000 ppm there are impurities that lead to instability (Dahl, Figure 2, Paragraph [0059]) and thus the beneficial range is 1000ppm-4000ppm which is equivalent to 0.10%-0.40% mass ratio of sulfur atoms in the sulfate to the lithium nickel manganate, which anticipates the claimed range while further disclosing a specific example where the mass ratio of sulfur atoms is 2090 ppm, or 0.209 measured by ICP (Dahl, Example 1), which falls within the claimed range.
Lastly, Dahl et al. discloses a reaction of the first mixture is carried out in an oxygen-rich environment, and a volume percentage of oxygen in the oxygen-containing environment is at least 5% (Dahl, [0041]), and thus may be up to 100%, in which the claimed percentage of oxygen falls within.
In regard to Claim 3, Dahl et al. discloses the preparation method according to claim 1. Dahl et al. further discloses a predetermined temperature of 900°C in each specific example which is higher than the melting point of each sulfate used in those same examples (Dahl, Examples 1-3).
In regard to Claim 4, Dahl et al. discloses the preparation method according to claim 1. Dahl et al. further discloses a reaction time in a specific example of 4 hours at 900°C, with some reaction times in other examples up to 14 hours (Dahl, Examples 1-3), which anticipates the claimed range.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dahl et al. (US 20190173084 A1), hereinafter “Dahl” as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Kawakami (US 20150325855 A1), hereinafter “Kawakami”. Dahl et al. and Kawakami et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely cathode materials and preparation.
In regard to Claim 7, Dahl et al. discloses the preparation method according to claim 1. Dahl et al. further discloses specific examples where the lithium nickel manganate and the sulfate mixing duration is from 6 minutes - 1hr, which overlaps the claimed range, however Dahl fails to explicitly disclose wherein the lithium nickel manganate and the sulfate are mixed by high-speed mixing equipment for 10 minutes to 20 minutes at a rotational speed of 2000 rpm to 3000 rpm.
Kawakami et al. discloses specific examples mixing a cobalt free lithium nickel manganate with precursors at a rotational speed of 2000 rpm for an aggregated duration of 20 minutes which has the effect of reaching a desired consistency before the next processing step (Kawakami, Paragraph [0108], Examples 2-4]). The speed and duration of time required is determined by the skilled artisan and the equipment available in order to achieve the common desired outcome of a uniformly mixed product. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a mixing speed and duration as taught in Kawakami et al. as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Kawakami and as doing so would amount to nothing more than applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dahl et al. (US 20190173084 A1) Dahl as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Okamoto et al. (US20140306152A1), hereinafter “Okamoto” and Kurita et al. (US 20170187031 A1), hereinafter “Kurita”. Dahl, Okamoto, and Kurita et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely cathode materials and preparation.
In regard to Claim 8, Dahl et al. discloses a cobalt-free cathode material for a lithium-ion battery, comprising lithium nickel manganate and a cladding layer wherein the cladding layer is cladded on the outer surface of the lithium nickel manganate (Dahl, Paragraphs [0035-0036]), Table 1, Example 2), and the material of the cladding layer comprises lithium sulfate (Dahl, Paragraphs [0046-0048], Figures 1-3). Dahl et al. also discloses a particle size between 3 and 25µm (Dahl, Paragraph [0019]), which overlaps the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. 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). See MPEP § 2144.05.
While Dahl discloses multistage drying steps to remove moisture, it fails to explicitly disclose the free water content of the cobalt-free cathode material is less than 200 ppm.
Okamoto et al. discloses a lithium nickel manganate with a free water content of less than 200 ppm (Okamoto, Paragraph [0016]) which provides the benefit of particularly good battery properties being achieved when the moisture content in a cathode active material is a certain value or lower (Okamoto, Paragraph [0008]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a lithium nickel manganate with a free water content of 200ppm or less as taught in Okamoto, as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Okamoto and as doing so would amount to nothing more than the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
Lastly, while Dahl et al. discloses the presence of lithium carbonate in the cathode material (Dahl, Examples 1-3) it is silent as to the residual alkali content in the cathode material.
Kurita et al. discloses a cathode material combined with a sulfate also comprising lithium carbonate wherein the residual alkali content is in a beneficial range of 0.1% by mass to 0.8% by mass as measured by neutralization titration (Kurita, Abstract, [0069]), which overlaps the claimed range and with that configuration taught as being capable of high charge/discharge cycle performance and high discharge capacity (Kurita, [0006]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. 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). See MPEP § 2144.05.
In regard to Claim 9, Dahl et al. in view of Okamoto and Kurita et al. discloses the cobalt-free cathode material according to claim 8. Dahl et al. discloses the specific surface area of the cobalt-free cathode material is in a preferable range of less than 0.5 m2/g (Dahl, Paragraph [0020]), which overlaps the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. 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). See MPEP § 2144.05.
In regard to Claim 10, Dahl et al. in view of Okamoto and Kurita et al. discloses the cobalt-free cathode material according to claim 8. Dahl et al. also discloses a lithium-ion battery, comprising the cobalt-free cathode material according to claim 8 (Dahl, Abstract).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 has been considered but are moot because the ground of rejection has been changed from a 35 USC 102 (a)(1) rejection to a 35 USC 103 rejection and a new rejection addresses the subject matter specifically challenged in the argument and amended claim 1. Specifically, Dahl et al. discloses step (a) mixing starting materials including the lithium nickel manganate with a sulfate precursor before step (b) which is reacting the first mixture at a predetermined temperature to obtain the cobalt-free cathode material (Dahl, [0026-0027]). The sulfate precursor includes ammonium sulfate as a preferred choice (Dahl, [0040]) and thus Dahl teaches mixing the ammonium sulfate precursor with the lithium nickel manganate in step (a). Dahl et al also teaches and oxygen rich environment for reaction with a range of oxygen above 5% but with no upper limit (Dahl, [0041]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH MAX OTERO whose telephone number is (571)272-2559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F Generally 7:30-430.
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 at (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.
/K.M.O./ Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights