ELECTRODE ACTIVE MATERIALS AND PROCESSES TO MAKE THEM
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/14/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In response to communication filed on 11/14/2025:
Claims 13 and 21 have been amended; no new matter has been entered.
Previous rejections under 35 USC 102(a)(1)/103 have been upheld.
Previous rejections under 35 USC 103 have been modified due to amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant discloses: The Applicant discloses: “The Office based the rejections in part on, "Yamamoto discloses nickel, cobalt, and manganese are all present in most of the examples shown in Table 1, page 16 with the exceptions of two. Further, paragraphs 0032, 0038, and 0039 support the addition of nickel in the compound. Therefore, the rejection and use of In re Best is upheld" (see Pages 2-3 of the Office Action dated 09/12/25).
Applicant respectfully disagrees. Initially, as the Office acknowledged, not all the examples of Yamamoto include nickel, cobalt, and manganese. Thus, the examples of Yamamoto may have different elemental compositions and different properties.
The Examiner respectfully traverses. MPEP 2123 I states: I. PATENTS ARE RELEVANT AS PRIOR ART FOR ALL THEY CONTAIN
"The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain." In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)).
The Applicant discloses: “In addition, Applicant respectfully notes that a comparative example is demonstrated in the present application. This comparative example differs only in that NaCl/KCl was not added during processing (see Paragraph [0142] of the published application). That is, the elemental composition of the inventive and comparative CAMs are the same, but the methods in which they were processed are different. Such differences result in entirely different acoustic activities (see Table 1 of the published application). This comparison demonstrates that the claimed acoustic activities are not necessarily inherent to any materials including similar elemental compositions.”
The Examiner respectfully traverses. The addition of NaCl/KCl, or lack thereof, is not commensurate within the scope of claim 21. In other words, addition of NaCl/KCl is not disclosed in the claim.
The Applicant discloses: “Further, Yamamoto discloses a positive electrode active material with a high manganese content (see Abstract, claim 1, and Paragraph [0020]). In particular, Yamamoto states that Mn/(Mn+Ni+Co) is not less than 0.55. Similarly, Yamamoto also discloses a nickel content that is much lower than described in the present application (see nickel content of 0 to 0.45 described in Paragraph [0039] and Table 1). Moreover, claim 2 of Yamamoto depends from claim 1 and cannot disclose a nickel percentage of more than 80 molo because claim 2 contains all limitations of claim 1. That is, claim 2 of Yamamoto must be read in the context of claim 1 of Yamamoto. Yamamoto is further deficient at least for these reasons.”
The Examiner respectfully traverses. Yamamoto discloses that the positive electrode active particles claimed can be either one of two crystal systems (physical crystal system): (1) a crystal system belonging to a space group R-3m; and (2) a crystal system belonging to a space group C2/m (See paragraph 0020 and claim 1). The crystal system Applicant is referencing is the C2/m crystal system which is disclosed in paragraph 0038 (also cited in arguments by Applicant) and also claim 1. However, this crystal system (C2/m) is not being relied on by the Examiner in the previous Action(s). The Examiner is relying on the R-3m crystal system which is disclosed in paragraph 0032 and represented by the formula LiMxM1-xO2. Indeed, the patented version (US 9,586,834 B2) of US 2014/0045068 even corrects for this in claim 2.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 13-20 have been considered but are moot based on grounds of new rejection necessitated by amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Yamamoto et al. (US 2014/0045068 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Yamamoto et al. teach a particulate electrode active material according to general formula Li1+xTM1-xO2, wherein TM is a combination of Ni and at least one transition metal selected from Co and Mn, and, optionally, at least one further metal selected from Ti, Zr, Mo, W, Al, Mg, Nb, and Ta, and x ranges from zero to 0.2, wherein at least 80 mol of TM is nickel (Abstract; claim 2 disclose a positive electrode active substance comprise the formula LiMxMn1-xO2 wherein M is Ni and/or Co and 0<x≤1.), wherein the average diameter (D50) of its primary particles ranges from 2 µm to 15 µm (Paragraph 0024 discloses the average primary particle diameter is not more than 5 µm.). However, they do not teach wherein an acoustic activity in the frequency range of from 350 kHz to 700 kHz is lower than 150 cumulative hits/cycle during the first cycle.
MPEP 2112.01 Composition, Product, and Apparatus Claims
I. PRODUCT AND APPARATUS CLAIMS — WHEN THE STRUCTURE RECITED IN THE REFERENCE IS SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE CLAIMS, CLAIMED PROPERTIES OR FUNCTIONS ARE PRESUMED TO BE INHERENT
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 22, Yamamoto et al. teach the particulate electrode active material according to claim 21, wherein its secondary particles are composed of 2 to 35 primary particles on average (Paragraph 0024 discloses the positive electrode active substance particles are in the form of secondary particles produced by aggregating primary particles thereof in which the primary particles have an average primary particle diameter of not more than 5 µm, and the secondary particles have an average secondary particle diameter of 1 to 50 µm. Being that an aggregate takes ≥2 primary particles, the average secondary particle diameter of 1 to 50 µm is within the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 23, Yamamoto et al. teach the particulate electrode active material according to claim 21, wherein specific surface area (BET) ranges from 0.1 m2/g to 1.5 m2/g (Paragraph 0044 discloses 0.3-6 m2/g.), determined by nitrogen adsorption, in accordance with to DIN-ISO 9277:2003-05 (Paragraph 0080).
Regarding claim 24, Yamamoto et al. teach a cathode comprising: (A) at least one cathode active material according to claim 21 (Claim 2), (B) carbon in electrically conductive form, and(C) at least one binder (Paragraph 0071).
Regarding claim 25, Yamamoto et al. an electrochemical cell comprising a cathode according to claim 24 (Paragraph 0085).
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 13-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al. (CN 109 786 702 A) and further in view of Li et al. (US 2016/0233507 A1).
Regarding claims 13-15 and 20, Jiang et al. teach a process for making a particulate lithiated transition metal oxide (Abstract; paragraphs 0033-0045) comprising the steps of:
(a) providing a particulate transition metal precursor comprising Ni (Paragraphs 0034-0036 disclose a high nickel metal precursor such as Ni-Co-Mn-(OH)2.), wherein the particulate precursor is a hydroxide or oxyhydroxide of TM and wherein at least 80 mol-% of TM is nickel (Paragraph 0036 discloses the high nickel precursor used is greater than or equal to 50 mol.%.);
(b) mixing said precursor, (b 1) with at least one compound of lithium (Paragraphs 0033-0034 mixing Li salt with the raw source. The Li source can comprise LiOH or Li2CO3.), and, (b2) before or after step (c1) (Paragraphs 0078;0083;0094 disclose mixing the precursor with lithium source occurs before heating.), with at least one processing additive selected from NaCl, KCl, and combinations thereof in an amount of from 0.1 to 5 % by weight, referring to sum of precursor and compound of lithium (Paragraphs 0033-0034 disclose also mixing in a flux material. Paragraph 0038 discloses the flux material can comprise KCl. Further, paragraph 0035 discloses the mass ratio of the high Ni precursor: Li salt: flux is 100:(40-60):(1-10).)
(c) thermally treating the mixture obtained according to step (b) in at least two steps, (c1) at 300°C to 500°C (Paragraph 0034 discloses a first calcination at 200-600°C.), and (c2) at 650°C to 850°C (Paragraph 0043 discloses a second calcination at 700-900°C.).
However, Jiang et al. do not teach wherein the calcination steps are completed under an atmosphere of oxygen.
Li et al. teach a method of making a cathode active material of a lithium-ion battery (Abstract). Further, the method comprises mixing Li, Ni, Co, and Mn precursors together along with MoO3 as an additive to form a gel (Paragraph 0039). The dry gel is then heated at 500° C. for 5 hours and then heated at 750° C. for 16 hours in oxygen atmosphere to form the lithium transition metal oxide (Paragraph 0039).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Jiang with the additive and two step heating process of Li in order to increase discharge capacity.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Jiang and Li et al. teach the process according to claim 13. Further, Jiang et al. teach wherein the particulate transition metal precursor is selected from hydroxides, carbonates, oxyhydroxides and oxides of TM (Paragraphs 0034-0036 disclose a a high nickel metal precursor such as Ni-Co-Mn-(OH)2.), wherein TM is a combination of metals according to general formula (I) (NiaCobMnc)1-dMd (1)
a ranging from 0.8 to 0.95, b ranging from zero to 0.1, c ranging from zero to 0.1, and d ranging of from zero to 0.1, M is selected from Mg, Al, Ti, Zr, Mo, W, Al, Nb, and Ta, wherein at least one of the variables b and c is greater than zero, and a+b+c=1. (Paragraph 0036 discloses NixCoyMnz(OH)2 wherein 0.5≦x≦1, 0≦y≦0.5, 0≦z≦0.5, x+y+z＝1.)
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al. (CN 109 786 702 A) and further in view of Li et al. (US 2016/0233507 A1) and further in view of Kawakami et al. (JP 2012-126633 A).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Jiang and Li et al. teach the process according to claim 13. However, while Jiang and Li teach a heating step(s) (c), they do not teach wherein step (c) is performed in a roller hearth kiln, in a rotary kiln, in a pusher kiln, in a vertical kiln, or in a pendulum kiln.
Kawakami, in teaching a method for producing a lithium composite metal oxide positive electrode active material (Abstract), teaches that firing of the composite oxide preferably occurs in a gas furnace including, e.g., a rotary kiln from the viewpoint of productivity (Paragraph 0033).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform Jiang’s heating in a rotary kiln, as suggested by Kawakami, with the reasonable expectation that doing so would improve productivity in manufacturing Jiang’s lithium composite metal oxide, as suggested by Kawakami.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al. Jiang et al. (CN 109 786 702 A) and further in view of Li et al. (US 2016/0233507 A1) and further in view of Kawai et al. (US 2011/0315918 A1).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Jiang and Li et al. teach the process according to claim 14. However, they do not teach wherein the processing additive has an average particle diameter (D50) ranging from 1 µm to 50 µm.
Kawai et al. teach a positive electrode active material composition composed of a lithium transition metal complex oxide. Further, the composition has additive particles composed of acidic oxide particles (Abstract; claim 1). The acidic oxide particles can comprise molybdenum oxide (Claim 2). The median diameter of the additive particle is 0.1-2 µm (Claim 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Jiang and Li with Kawai in order to improve output power characteristics.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 is allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the subject matter of claim 19 is not disclosed in the prior art. Further, modification of Jiang or Li with the subject matter of claim 19 would teach away from the invention(s) and not present a prima facie case of obviousness.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL S GATEWOOD whose telephone number is (571)270-7958. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:30.
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, Ula Tavares-Crockett can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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.
Daniel S. Gatewood, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1729
/DANIEL S GATEWOOD, Ph. D/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729 January 13th, 2026