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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/10/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 02/10/2026 has been entered. Claim 1 is amended, Claim 2 is canceled, and Claims 1, and 3-16 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, 2-6, 8-11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 20190363358 A1), hereinafter “Choi” in view of Endo et al. (JP6428996B2 - Machine Translation), hereinafter “Endo. Choi and Endo et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely production of positive electrode materials.
In regard to Claims 1 and 9-10, Choi et al. discloses a method of preparing a positive electrode active material, the method comprising washing a mixture of a first lithium transition metal oxide particles and a second lithium transition metal oxide particles with a washing solution (Choi, Abstract, Paragraph [0073], Example 1). The first lithium transition metal oxide and second lithium transition metal oxide in Choi undoubtedly each have a Brunauer-Emmett-Teller (BET) specific surface area if measured by the skilled artisan, however, Choi only discloses the BET of the mixture and thus fails to explicitly disclose the first lithium transition metal oxide has a first Brunauer-Emmett-Teller (BET) specific surface area and the second lithium transition metal oxide having a second BET specific surface area. Also, while Choi discloses washing the lithium transition metal oxides, it is silent as to the amount of washing solution provided normalized to the weight and specific surface area of the active materials. Further, all of the examples in the original specification have washing solution in parts by weight of 2640, 2940, 100, 100, 1056, and 4704 (Original Specification Examples) averaging to 1923.33 parts by weight of washing solution, and not all of them satisfy equation 1.
Endo et al. discloses a method of preparing a positive electrode active material, the method comprising washing a first lithium transition metal oxide and a second lithium transition metal oxide with a washing solution (Endo, [16, 43]), wherein the first lithium transition metal oxide has a first Brunauer-Emmett-Teller (BET) specific surface area that ranges from 1 m2/g or more and a second lithium transition metal oxide having a second BET specific surface area that is preferably at least 0.5 m2/g or more preferably in a range of 1-4 m2/g (Endo, [32]), which overlaps the claimed range wherein a difference between the first BET specific surface area and the second BET specific surface area is in a range of greater than 0 m2/g to 0.5 m2/2. It is also noted that regardless of the "first" and "second" language used in Claim 1, both of the lithium transition metal oxides could be the same composition with a different BET specific surface area. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference, as 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.
Endo et al. also discloses washing a first lithium transition metal oxide with a weight of 2.278g, a BET specific surface area of 1 m2/g or more with 200 ml of washing solution (Endo, Example 1, [32,43]), mixed at a wt ratio of 8:2 with a second lithium transition metal oxide with a weight of 1.729g, a BET specific surface area of 0.5 m2/g which is washed with 200 ml of washing solution (Endo, Example 1, [32,43]). Using equation 1 from the original specification and the values above a range of washing solution in parts by weight is calculated as 4500 ≤ the amount of washing solution ≤ 13,500 and using equation 2 the values above a range of washing solution in parts by weight is calculated as 6300 ≤ the amount of washing solution ≤ 11,700 and using equation 3 the values above a range of washing solution in parts by weight is calculated as 8,100 ≤ the amount of washing solution ≤ 9,900.
Although Endo et al. discloses washing each LTMO separately, the skilled artisans provide a washing solution at an optimized rate known to be effective in washing away certain amounts of ions while leaving a certain ppm of elementary components (Endo, [38]) and Endo et al. discloses a specific example wherein the lithium transition metal oxide is washed with an amount of washing fluid that is calculated using the values cited above of 200 mL/ 2.278g = 87.8 mL/g which is 8780 parts washing solution/100 parts active material (Endo, Example 1, [32,43]), which satisfies equations 1-3. 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 washing solution present in an amount based on 100 parts by weight of the mixture that satisfies Equations 1-3 to wash lithium transition metal oxides as taught in Endo to the lithium transition metal oxides disclosed in Choi et al. as doing so would amount to nothing more than the use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and is reasonably within the realm of routine optimization of the skilled artisan.
In regard to Claim 3, Choi in view of Endo et al. disclose the method of claim 1. Choi et al. discloses an average particle size of the first lithium transition metal oxide and the second lithium transition metal oxide have different average particle diameters (Choi, Paragraph [0073]).
In regard to Claim 4, Choi in view of Endo et al. disclose the method of claim 1. Choi et al. discloses the first lithium transition metal oxide and the second lithium transition metal oxide having different morphologies but fails to explicitly disclose different compositions. Endo et al. discloses a beneficial positive electrode active material comprising a first and second LTMO wherein each LTMO has a different composition (Endo, Examples 1-16). 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 the first lithium transition metal oxide and the second lithium transition metal oxide each having different compositions as doing so would be obvious to try vs providing a first and second lithium transition metal oxide having the same composition and would amount to nothing more than choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
In regard to Claim 5, Choi in view of Endo et al. discloses the method of claim 1. Choi et al. discloses wherein the first lithium transition metal oxide and the second lithium transition metal oxide each comprises 70 mol% or more of nickel based on the total number of moles of transition metals present in each lithium transition metal oxide (Choi, Example 1).
In regard to Claim 6, Choi in view of Endo et al. discloses the method of claim 1. Choi et al. discloses a first and second lithium transition metal oxide each having a composition satisfying Formula 3 where f=0 and M2=0 (Choi, Example 1).
In regard to Claim 8, Choi in view of Endo et al. discloses the method of claim 1. Choi et al. discloses an amount of residual lithium present in the first lithium transition metal oxide and an amount of residual lithium present in the second lithium transition metal oxide is 0.05-0.3 wt% (Choi, Paragraph [0030]), 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 11, Choi in view of Endo et al. discloses the method of claim 1. Choi et al. also discloses the washing is performed at a temperature of 25°C (Choi, Paragraph [0073]), which falls within the claimed range of 5°C to 40°C.
In regard to Claim 16, Choi in view of Endo et al. discloses the method of claim 1. Choi et al. also discloses wherein the washing includes simultaneously washing the first and second lithium transition metal oxide particles (Choi, Abstract, Paragraph [0073], Example 1).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 20190363358 A1), hereinafter “Choi” in view of Endo et al. (JP6428996B2 - Machine Translation), hereinafter “Endo” as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Park et al. (WO 2019143047 A1 – Machine Translation), hereinafter “Park”. Choi, Endo and Park are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely production of positive electrode materials.
In regard to Claim 7, Choi in view of Endo et al. discloses the method of claim 1. While Choi and Endo et al. disclose different variations of lithium transition metal oxides none of them explicitly fall within both Formula 4 and Formula 5. Park et al. discloses the first lithium transition metal oxide has a composition represented by Formula 4 and the second lithium transition metal oxide has a composition represented by Formula 5 (Park, Abstract, Formula 1 and Formula 2, Examples 1-3 and comparative examples 1-2). Further, the only examples of the stoichiometry of the first and second lithium transition metal oxides in the original specification are substantially similar to the examples in Park et al. 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 first and second lithium transition metal oxides having a composition satisfying Formula 4 and 5 as doing so is nothing more than a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. Further, as held in In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454 (CCPA 1955), minor optimizations or variations of known parameters that would have been routine to a person of ordinary skill in the art do not render a claim nonobvious.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 20190363358 A1), hereinafter “Choi” in view of Endo et al. (JP6428996B2 - Machine Translation), hereinafter “Endo” as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Martinez et al. (High reactivity of the nickel-rich LiNi1-x-yMnxCoyO2 layered materials surface towards H2O/CO2 atmosphere and LiPF6-based electrolyte, Journal of Power Sources, Vol 468, 2020), hereinafter “Martinez”. Choi, Endo, and Martinez et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely production of positive electrode materials.
In regard to Claim 12, Choi in view of Endo et al. discloses the method of claim 1. While the skilled artisans of Choi and Endo must wash the LTMO’s for some amount of time, Choi and Endo et al. are silent as to what the washing time is.
Martinez et al. discloses a specific example with a beneficial washing time of 15 minutes (Martinez, Table 1) for a lithium transition metal oxide, which falls within the claimed range of 5 minutes to 60 minutes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to wash the lithium transition metal oxide for 5 minutes to 60 minutes as doing so would be obvious to try and would amount to nothing more than applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
In regard to Claim 13, Choi in view of Endo discloses the method of claim 1. While Choi and Endo disclose separating the mixture from the washing solution and drying the mixture they fail to explicitly disclose wherein the mixture separated from the washing solution has a water content of 20% or less.
Martinez et al. discloses separating the lithium transition metal oxide from the washing solution by vacuum filtration and then a step of drying the mixture (Martinez, Page 2 Section 2.4, Page 3 Section 3.1.1, Page 6 Column 2 Lines 3-5). The original specification discloses the mixture is passed through a pressure filter (Original Specification, Paragraph [0070])) which is a common technique used by the skilled artisan to perform this separation step and is disclosed by Martinez (Martinez, Page 2, Section 2.4). In addition, Martinez et al. also uses a TGA-MS to assess the lithium transition metal oxides after drying and the TGA data revealed a mass loss of approximately 0.5% to 1.0% in the temperature range of 100-200°C which is attributed to the desorption of physically absorbed water (Martinez, Pages 5-6, Section 3.2.2) thus, at a minimum before drying the lithium transition metal oxides had 0.5 to 1.0% water content 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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 20190363358 A1), hereinafter “Choi” in view of Endo et al. (JP6428996B2 - Machine Translation), hereinafter “Endo” as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view Imanari et al. (US 20110151327 A1), hereinafter “Imanari”. Choi, Endo, and Imanari et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely production of positive electrode materials.
In regard to Claim 14, Choi in view of Endo et al. discloses the method of claim 13. While Choi et al. fails to explicitly discloses mixing a coating element-containing raw material with the separated mixture and performing a heat treatment to form a coating layer.
Imanari et al. discloses providing a coating element-containing raw material and mixing it with the separated mixture of LTMO after washing and performing a heat treatment to form a beneficial coating layer (Imanari, Paragraphs [0108-0111]). 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 coating element-containing raw material with the separated mixture and performing a heat treatment to form a coating layer 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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 20190363358 A1), hereinafter “Choi” in view of Endo et al. (JP6428996B2 - Machine Translation), hereinafter “Endo” as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view Imanari et al. (US 20110151327 A1), hereinafter “Imanari” and Park et al. (WO 2019143047 A1 – Machine Translation), hereinafter “Park”. Choi, Endo, and Imanari and Park et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely production of positive electrode materials.
In regard to Claim 15, Choi in view of Endo and Imanari et al. disclose the method of claim 14. While Imanari discloses a coating layer it fails to explicitly disclose the coating element falling within the claimed group. Park et al. also discloses the coating element is at least one selected from the group consisting of Zr, B, W, Mo, Cr, Nb, Mg, Hf, Ta, La, Ti, Sr, Ba, Ce, F, P, S, and Y by using Boron in the form of Boric acid in a specific example. (Park, Paragraphs [42, 118]). Thus, the skilled artisan would find it obvious to provide a coating element that is at least one selected from the group consisting of Zr, B, W, Mo, Cr, Nb, Mg, Hf, Ta, La, Ti, Sr, Ba, Ce, F, P, S, and Y as taught in Park et al. to the positive electrode materials disclosed in Choi et al as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits of coating taught in Park and Imanari and as doing so would amount to nothing more than a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection for claim 1 no longer relies on the prior art of record and instead relies on Choi et al. (US 20190363358 A1) in view of a newly presented prior art reference Endo et al. (US 20190363358 A1). The limitations added to amended claim 1 are from previously presented claim 2 however the range of BET specific surface area has been modified and narrowed. This new range is taught by Endo et al. as made clear in the 35 USC 103 rejection above. Further, the amount of washing solution is calculated based on the disclosure of Endo and no longer relies on Imanari or Martinez.
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