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 .
The Applicant’s Argument filed on 3/13/2026 was received.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office action issued on 12/12/2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding to claim 7: In line 2 “20 m2/g”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tan et al. (CN 107546383 A) on claims 1-5, 7, 8, 16 are withdrawn because Applicant’s arguments are persuasive.
Claims 1-4, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (US 20130323598 A1).
Regarding to claim 1: Liu et al. disclose a lithium nickel cobalt manganese composite oxide cathode material (abstract). The lithium nickel cobalt manganese composite oxide cathode material is obtained by mixing a precursor with a lithium source (par. 31). The precursor comprises:
a spherical nickel cobalt hydroxide (equivalent to a first region) (par. 31); and
a layer of manganese hydroxide (equivalent to a second region) uniformly coated on the surface of the spherical nickel cobalt hydroxide (par. 32).
(The chemical formula of nickel cobalt hydroxide is (Ni, Co)(OH)2, which is equivalent to 0<a<1, 0<b<1, c=0, and a+b+c=1 in the instant claim.) (The chemical formula of manganese hydroxide is Mn(OH)2, which is equivalent to d=1, e=0, and d+e=1 in the instant claim.)
Regarding to claims 2, 3: Liu et al. disclose the lithium nickel cobalt manganese composite oxide cathode material is obtained by mixing a precursor with a lithium source (par. 31). One of ordinary skill in the art could calculate the required atomic ratio of nickel cobalt hydroxide and manganese hydroxide based on the target atomic ratio of the lithium nickel cobalt manganese composite oxide. Liu et al. disclose one example of the lithium nickel cobalt manganese composite oxide cathode material is LiNi0.72Co0.18Mn0.1O2 (par. 31). Examiner calculate the precursor composition to be Ni0.8Co0.2(OH)2 (equivalent to a=0.8, b=0.2, c=0) and Mn(OH)2 (equivalent to d=1 and e=0) based on LiNi0.72Co0.18Mn0.1O2.
Regarding to claim 4: Liu et al. disclose the lithium nickel cobalt manganese composite oxide cathode material is obtained by mixing a precursor with a lithium source (par. 31). One of ordinary skill in the art could calculate the required mole ratio of nickel, cobalt, and manganese based on the target atomic ratio of the lithium nickel cobalt manganese composite oxide. Liu et al. disclose one example of the lithium nickel cobalt manganese composite oxide cathode material is LiNi0.72Co0.18Mn0.1O2 (par. 31). Examiner calculates that the mole ratios of nickel, cobalt, and manganese are 72 %, 18%, 10%, respectively, with respect to total transition metals.
Regarding to claim 16: Liu et al. disclose a lithium nickel cobalt manganese composite oxide cathode material (abstract). The lithium nickel cobalt manganese composite oxide cathode material is obtained by mixing the precursor with a lithium hydroxide (equivalent to a lithium raw material), and followed by calcining the mixture (par. 31).
Claims 1, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lipson et al. (US 20210367235 A1).
Regarding to claim 1: Lipson et al. disclose a stabilized lithium metal oxide cathode material (abstract). The stabilized lithium metal oxide cathode material is obtained by mixing a precursor with a lithium source (par. 8). The precursor comprises:
a metal hydroxide (MOH) core particle (equivalent to a first region) comprising a first metal hydroxide composition (e.g., MOH comprising Ni, Mn, Co, or a combination of two or more thereof) (par. 8, 37) (The metal hydroxide can be (Ni,Co)(OH)2, which is equivalent to 0<a<1, 0<b<1, c=0, and a+b+c=1).
a MOH coating (equivalent to a second region) with a different metal hydroxide composition (e.g., an MOH comprising Mn in combination with Co and/or another metal ion) on the core particles (par. 8, 37) (The MOH coating can be Mn(OH)2, which is equivalent to d=1, e=0, and d+e=1).
Regarding to claim 9: Lipson et al. disclose a stabilized lithium metal oxide cathode material (abstract) as described above. Lipson et al. fail to explicitly disclose the positive electrode active material precursor satisfies Equation 1 in the instant claim. However, it is the position of the examiner that the ratio of C(100)/C(001) of the precursor is inherent, given that the metal hydroxide (MOH) core particle disclosed by Lipson et al. and the method of the present application are produced under similar solutions, temperatures, and pH values. A reference which is silent about a claimed invention’s features is inherently anticipatory if the missing feature is necessarily present in that which is described in the reference. Inherency is not established by probabilities or possibilities. In re Robertson, 49 USPQ2d 1949 (1999).
Claims 1, 9, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang et al. (CN 102456877 A. The English translation of the CN 102456877 A is attached.
Regarding to claim 1: Yang et al. disclose a positive electrode material precursor (abstract). The positive electrode material precursor comprises:
a hydroxide of a core metal (equivalent to a first region) wherein the core metal is selected from one or more of nickel, manganese or cobalt (The metal hydroxide can be (Ni,Co)(OH)2, which is equivalent to 0<a<1, 0<b<1, c=0, and a+b+c=1 in the instant claim) (par. 9)
a hydroxide of a shell metal (equivalent to a second region) wherein the shell metal is manganese (the shell can be Mn(OH)2, which is equivalent to d=1, e=0, and d+e=1 in the instant claim) (par. 9).
Yang et al. further disclose a method to produce the precursor having the manganese hydroxide shell coated on the nickel, cobalt hydroxide core in comparable example 1 (par. 101-106).
Regarding to claim 9: Yang et al. disclose the positive electrode material precursor) as described above. Yang et al. fail to explicitly disclose the positive electrode active material precursor satisfies Equation 1 in the instant claim. However, it is the position of the examiner that the ratio of C(100)/C(001) of the precursor is inherent, given that the method of manufacturing the precursor disclosed by Yang et al. and the method of the present application have similar solutions, temperatures, and pH values. A reference which is silent about a claimed invention’s features is inherently anticipatory if the missing feature is necessarily present in that which is described in the reference. Inherency is not established by probabilities or possibilities. In re Robertson, 49 USPQ2d 1949 (1999).
Regarding to claim 10: Yang et al. disclose the positive electrode material precursor) as described above. Yang et al. fail to explicitly disclose a crystallite size of the positive electrode active material precursor in a (100) plane is 35 nm or more and 100 nm or less. However, it is the position of the examiner that the crystallite size of the positive electrode active material precursor in the (100) plane is inherent, given that the method of manufacturing the precursor disclosed by Yang et al. and the method of the present application have similar solutions, temperatures, and pH values. A reference which is silent about a claimed invention’s features is inherently anticipatory if the missing feature is necessarily present in that which is described in the reference. Inherency is not established by probabilities or possibilities. In re Robertson, 49 USPQ2d 1949 (1999).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Tan et al. (CN 107546383 A) on claim 6 is withdrawn because Applicant’s arguments are persuasive. The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Tan et al. (CN 107546383 A) in view of Miyamoto et al. (US 5506076 A) on claims 9, 10 are withdrawn because Applicant’s arguments are persuasive.
Claims 5, 7, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Liu et al. (US 20130323598 A1) as applied in claim 1.
Regarding to claim 5: Liu et al. disclose a lithium nickel cobalt manganese composite oxide cathode material as described in paragraph 4 above. Liu et al. further disclose the average particle size (D50) of the lithium nickel cobalt manganese composite oxide cathode material is 0.5-25 µm (par. 27). It is the position of the examiner that the average particle diameter (D50) of the positive electrode active material precursor is inherent, given that both Liu et al. and the instant application use the precipitation process to manufacture the core-shell precursor and the lithium nickel cobalt manganese composite oxide cathode material of Liu et al. has a similar particle size range. A reference which is silent about a claimed invention’s features is inherently anticipatory if the missing feature is necessarily present in that which is described in the reference. Inherency is not established by probabilities or possibilities. In re Robertson, 49 USPQ2d 1949 (1999). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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(I).
Regarding to claim 7: Liu et al. disclose a lithium nickel cobalt manganese composite oxide cathode material as described in paragraph 4 above. Liu et al. further disclose the specific surface area of the cathode material is within 0.1-20 m2/g (par. 28). It is the position of the examiner that the specific surface area of the positive electrode active material precursor is inherent, given that both Liu et al. and the instant application use the precipitation process to manufacture the core-shell precursor and the lithium nickel cobalt manganese composite oxide cathode material of Liu et al. has a similar specific surface area range. A reference which is silent about a claimed invention’s features is inherently anticipatory if the missing feature is necessarily present in that which is described in the reference. Inherency is not established by probabilities or possibilities. In re Robertson, 49 USPQ2d 1949 (1999). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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(I).
Regarding to claim 8: Liu et al. disclose a lithium nickel cobalt manganese composite oxide cathode material as described in paragraph 4 above. Liu et al. further disclose the tap density of the cathode material is greater than 1.5 g/cm3 (par. 28). It is the position of the examiner that the tap density of the positive electrode active material precursor is inherent, given that both Liu et al. and the instant application use the precipitation process to manufacture the core-shell precursor and the lithium nickel cobalt manganese composite oxide cathode material of Liu et al. has a similar tap density range. A reference which is silent about a claimed invention’s features is inherently anticipatory if the missing feature is necessarily present in that which is described in the reference. Inherency is not established by probabilities or possibilities. In re Robertson, 49 USPQ2d 1949 (1999). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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(I).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (2) as being unpatentable over Lipson et al. (US 20210367235 A1) as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Liu et al. (US 20130323598 A1).
Regarding to claim 6: Lipson et al. disclose a stabilized lithium metal oxide cathode material as described in paragraph 5 above. Lipson et al. further disclose the lithium nickel cobalt manganese composite oxide coating has an about 100 to about 500 nm thick coating layer on the surface (par. 9). Lipson et al. fail to explicitly disclose a thickness of the second region is 30 nm to 500 nm. However, Liu et al. disclose a lithium nickel cobalt manganese composite oxide cathode material (abstract). The lithium nickel cobalt manganese composite oxide cathode material is obtained by mixing a precursor with a lithium source (par. 31). The precursor comprises:
a spherical nickel cobalt hydroxide (equivalent to a first region) (par. 31); and
a layer of manganese hydroxide (equivalent to a second region) uniformly coated on the surface of the spherical nickel cobalt hydroxide (par. 32).
Liu et al. recognize the thermal stability and the interface resistance of the cathode material are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the thickness of the protective shell (par. 8), with the thermal stability and the interface resistance both increasing as the thickness of the protective shell is increased, the precise thickness of the protective shell would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed thickness of the second region cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the thickness of the MOH coating of Lipson et al. to obtain the desired balance between the thermal stability and the interface resistance as taught by Liu et al. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments filed on 3/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant primarily argues:
Tan discloses the compositions of the precursor core and the precursor shell both have Mn.
In response:
Applicant’s arguments are not moot. The newly cited reference, Liu, teaches a spherical nickel cobalt hydroxide (core) and a layer of manganese hydroxide (shell). The other two newly cited references, Lipson, and Yang, disclose manganese is an optional metal in core.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PIN JAN WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7057. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached on 571-272-1295. 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.
/PIN JAN WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1717
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights