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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1-9 (10-12 withdrawn) are pending and presented for examination. Claims 1-5 and 7 were amended via the instant amendment dated 1 July 2026 (hereinafter, “Remarks at __”) which is acknowledged and entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks dated 1 July 2026 (hereinafter, “Remarks at __”) are acknowledged and entered.
The rejection of claims 1-3, 8 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) over Liu is WITHDRAWN over the instant amendment incorporating claim 7 which Liu was not used to anticipate.
The rejection of claims 1-3, 6, 8 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) over Koshika is WITHDRAWN over the instant amendment incorporating claim 7 which Koshika was not used to anticipate.
The rejection of claims 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Liu in view of Yu is WITHDRAWN as the base rejection was withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Koshika in view of Yu is WITHDRAWN as the base rejection was withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1-5, 8 and 9 under 35 U.S.C> 103 over Ryoshi in view of Chen is WITHDRAWN over the instant amendment incorporating claim 7 as Ryoshi nor Chen disclosed the claimed composition.
The rejection of claims 4 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Liu is MAINTAINED and the rejection is updated below as it affects the pending claims. The rejection of claims 4 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Koshika is MAINTAINED and the rejection is updated below as it affects the pending claims.
The traversal is that Liu is inter alia merely a broad disclosure that states Mn is present but does not disclose Mn being between 0.001 and 0.05 (0.1 to 5 mol%). While Liu discloses examples with y from 0.1-0.16 (10-16 mol%, Remarks at 8), this would merely be anticipatory and would not necessarily guide one of ordinary skill in the art to definitively be forced to select in that range. Koshika also discloses examples with x=0.10 and z=0.20, but Koshika does disclose broadly narrower with endpoint at 0.95 for 1-x-y-z, y at 0.05 and the balance of Co which can lie within the claimed range for amended claim 1. Applicants attempt to setup an argument for an unexpected result (Remarks at 10) pointing out that “Tables 1-2 of the instant specification demonstrate high charge/discharge capacity and high cycle life for the claimed low-Mn, gradient containing structure” (Remarks at 10, emphasis added). Firstly, the claims are not commensurate in scope with “Example 1”, no gradient of Mn is claimed in claim 1 and the values for 1-x-y, x, y, and z are 0.9702, 0.0198, and 0.01 and is drawn not to a hydroxide but to the electrode version (as Li and O are present) so there are also variables in how the electrode is made that may also present differences outside of any argument with respect to an unexpected result. It is also noted when comparing Example 1 and Comparative Example 1 and 2 that there is not a statistically significant difference between the mAh/g (<1%), though there is between efficiency and cycle life at 50 cycles. A showing that the end points of each matter and amending in the gradient requirement would setup a possibly compelling case for a showing of unexpected results that should have been submitted with the instant response.
With respect to the gradient traversal, Applicants note that in Liu that a flocculent Mn3O4 coating layer is formed (Remarks at 12) and that this layer is “thinner, resulting in more even manganese/nickel distribution on the surface after calcination” (Id.). However, Liu was not used to reject claim 5 which covers the gradient. With respect to Liu in view of Yu for this, Applicants argue that Yu discloses a gradual change from core to shell. Yu discloses that the core has Mn at 0.1 and the shell at 0.5, as discussed infra.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu.
Regarding claims 1-4, 7 and 8, Liu discloses a nanoparticle precursor for a positive electrode active material for a rechargeable lithium battery (Liu at 1) comprising:
A nickel-based composite metal hydroxide (Ni1-x-yCoxMny(OH)2, Liu at 7) including a secondary particle in which a plurality of primary particles are agglomerated (Mn(OH)2 agglomerates onto cores) wherein the secondary particles include a central portion of the nickel-based composite metal hydroxide and an outer portion of the manganese hydroxide and the manganese hydroxide can be oxidized to form Mn3O4 (Id.).
Since M can be Ni the claim can be written as Ni1-x-yCoxMny(OH)2 like that of Liu and Liu discloses x>0, y>0 and x+y<1 which all overlap the range instantly claimed such that a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05). Since the value for Mn can be >0 it broadly covers 0.1-5 mol% based on the total amount for claim 4. Also since z as claimed can be 0 there need not be any Mn present.
As to claim 9, a layer structure exists (Liu at 4).
Claim 5 (and alternatively to that above, claim 6) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Yu.
Regarding claim 5, Liu does not expressly state a gradual gradient in concentration which gradually decreases from the shell to the core.
Yu in a manganese coated nickel core discloses a gradual decrease in the concentration of Mn from the surface to the core (0.5 to 0.2, Yu at 4:13 & 11:40-46).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to utilize the concentration gradient of Yu in the particle of Liu. The teaching or suggested motivation in doing so being high capacity and stability (Yu at 8:13-20).
Concerning claim 6, Yu discloses setting the surface layer to be more than 5% that of the core which is “within 50 length%” (Yu at 8:41-47, covering claim 6 alternatively).
Claims 1-4 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koshika.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 7 and 8, Koshiika discloses a nanoparticle positive electrode active material precursor particle (Koshika at “Title”) comprising:
A nickel-based composite metal hydroxide including a secondary particle in which a plurality of primary particles are agglomerated (Koshika at [0033]),
Wherein the secondary particles include a central portion and a surface portion wherein the surface portion is Nix1Mny1Mz1(OH)2 wherein 0.7<=x1<=0.95, 0.05<=y1<=0.30, 0<=z1<=0.25 (“Abstract”. Note that y1<=0.05 overlaps <0.05 such that it is still prima facie obvious, see MPEP 2144.05).
As to claim 3, as the claim is not particularly limited to manganese oxide the species need not be present to meet the claim as an alternative of manganese hydroxide is disclosed (stated differently, claim 3 is further limiting the manganese oxide but does not explicitly state “wherein the primary particle is coated with manganese oxide and the manganese oxide is MnO2, Mn2O3 or Mn3O4”).
Regarding claim 4, Koshika discloses that the Mn can be present at 5 to 25 mol% (“Abstract”) which overlaps that range instantly claimed such that a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05).
With respect to claim 6, the thickness is 5-20% which is “within 50%” of the total size (“Abstract”).
As to claim 9, a layer structure is present ([0168]).
Claim 5 (and alternatively to that above for claim 6) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koshika as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Yu.
Regarding claim 5, Koshika does not expressly state a gradual gradient in concentration which gradually decreases from the shell to the core.
Yu in a manganese coated nickel core discloses a gradual decrease in the concentration of Mn from the surface to the core (0.5 to 0.2, Yu at 4:13 & 11:40-46).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to utilize the concentration gradient of Yu in the particle of Koshika. The teaching or suggested motivation in doing so being high capacity and stability (Yu at 8:13-20, also alternatively covering claim 6).
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US PG Pub No. 20200161643 to Chang et al. (hereinafter, “Chang at __”) in view of Chen.
Regarding claims 1-4 and 7, Cheng discloses a positive electrode active material precursor for rechargeable lithium battery (Cheng at [0090]-[0092]) comprising:
A nickel based composite metal hydroxide including a secondary particle in which a plurality of primary particles are agglomerated (Cheng at [0076]-[0078]) wherein the secondary particles include a central portion and a surface portion (Id.) and the nickel-based composite metal hydroxide is represented by:
(Ni1-x-y-zCoxMnyMz)(OH)2. Chemical Formula 3 In Chemical Formula 3, M is at least one element selected from boron (B), magnesium (Mg), calcium (Ca), strontium (Sr), barium (Ba), titanium (Ti), vanadium (V), chromium (Cr), iron (Fe), copper (Cu), zirconium (Zr), and aluminum (Al), x≤(1−x−y−z), y≤(1−x−y−z), 0<x<1, 0≤y<1, and 0≤z<1. In some embodiments, in Chemical Formula 3, 0<x≤0.33, 0≤y≤0.5, 0≤z≤0.05, and 0.33≤(1−x−y−z)≤0.95 (Cheng at [0090]-[0092]) the values of which overlap the stoichiometric ranges instantly claimed such that a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05).
However, Cheng does not expressly state that the surface portion contains manganese as claimed.
Chen discloses that the composite particle can comprise an outer shell of MnO2 (Chen at 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to utilize the shell layer of Chen in the aggregate of Ryoshi. The teaching or suggested motivation in doing so being an increase in structural stability (Chen at 1).
As to claim 2, Mn(OH)2 can also be present (Chen at 2).
As to claim 4, 10 mol% Mn is added (Chen at 3).
As to claim 5, a concentration gradient exists where the Mn gradually decreases from the surface to the core (Chen at 1).
Turning to claim 6, the surface layer is 15% of the core length which meets “within 50%” (Cheng at [0051].
With respect to claim 8, nanofibers are utilized (Cheng at [0010]).
As to claim 9, a layer structure is disclosed (Chen at 1).
Conclusion
Claims 1-9 are finally rejected.
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 RICHARD M RUMP whose telephone number is (571)270-5848. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 06:45 AM to 04:45 PM.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
RICHARD M. RUMP
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759
/RICHARD M RUMP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights