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 .
METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING HIGH-NICKEL POSITIVE ELECTRODE ACTIVE MATERIAL
Examiner: Adam Arciero S.N. 18/031,076 Art Unit: 1727 February 26, 2026
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s response filed on February 05, 2026 has been received. Claims 1-8 and 10-21 are currently pending. Claims 1-8 and 10-12 have been amended. Claims 14-21 are newly added.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 13-21 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: the new invention recites a shared technical feature (the claimed method steps) that does not make a contribution over the prior art, as discussed in the rejections of the previous Office action.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 13-21 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The claim rejections under 35 USC 112(b) on claims 1-12 are withdrawn because Applicant has amended the claims.
Claims 1-8 and 10-12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “high pressure”, and the claim also recites “including a pressure ranging from 40-50 bar” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 10 recites the broad recitation “high temperature”, and the claim also recites wherein the temperature ranges from 230-270ºC which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The claim rejections under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee on claims 1, 3, 6-7, 9 and 11-12 are withdrawn because Applicant has amended the independent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The claim rejections under 35 USC 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lee and Ucyildiz on claims 2 and 9-10 are withdrawn because Applicant has amended the independent claim.
The claim rejections under 35 USC 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lee on claims 4-5 and 8 are withdrawn because Applicant has amended the independent claim.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 1020150075200 A; as found in IDS dated 04/10/2023 and using a machine translation for citation purposes) in view of Ucyildiz et al. (High Pressure Sulphuric Acid Leaching of Lateritic Nickel Ore, Physiochem, Probl, Miner, process, 2017, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 475-488; as found in IDS dated 04/10/2023).
As to Claims 1-2 and 10, Lee discloses an acid-leaching method for making a positive active material precursor, comprising: preparing positive material scraps comprising nickel, manganese, and cobalt; leaching the metal components of the scraps using an acid to prepare a positive active material precursor solution, and then removing impurities; then adding a chelating agent and a hydroxide precipitant into the precursor solution, thereby coprecipitating a positive active material precursor (claim 1, paragraphs [0027 and 0035-0039]). Lee does not specifically disclose the claimed pressure.
However, Ucyildiz teaches of a method of leaching nickel by adding sulfuric acid to lateritic nickel ores using an HPAL method under pressure of 3.3-5.5 MPa (33-55 bar; which overlaps the claims) and a temperature of 240ºC (Abstract, pg. 476, first full paragraph and pg. 478, Methods). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Lee to use the claimed nickel ores at the claimed pressure and temperature because Ucyildiz teaches that the selective separation of nickel and cobalt can be achieved (Abstract and pg. 476, first full paragraph).
As to Claim 3, Lee discloses wherein the liquid intermediate comprises nickel sulfate, cobalt sulfate and manganese sulfate (paragraphs [0027-0028]).
As to Claims 4-5, Lee does not specifically disclose the claimed amounts of nickel and cobalt in the liquid intermediate. However, the courts have held that generally, differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical, see MPEP 2144.05, II, B. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the amounts of nickel and cobalt in Lee to read on the claims because Lee teaches that a cathode active material can be produced without impurities (Abstract).
As to Claim 6, Lee discloses wherein the liquid intermediate comprises nickel sulfate, cobalt sulfate, and manganese sulfate which are also used in a subsequent component adjustment step (which reads on the sulfates being additionally added) (paragraphs [0027-0028 and 0030-0031]).
As to Claim 7, Lee discloses wherein a lithium raw material is added to the positive active material precursor and is fired (sintered) (paragraph [0021]).
As to Claim 8, Lee discloses the same method and materials as the claimed invention. In addition, the courts have held that generally, differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical, see MPEP 2144.05, II, B. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the amounts of nickel and cobalt in Lee to read on the claims because Lee teaches that a cathode active material can be produced without impurities (Abstract). Therefore, it is the position of the Office that the positive active material produced by Lee and the claimed invention are the same, see MPEP 2112.
As to Claim 9, Lee discloses an acid leaching method which reads on the claimed “High-Pressure Acid Leaching (HPAL) method”.
As to Claim 11, Lee teaches wherein the amounts of nickel, cobalt and manganese can be adjusted to a ratio of 6:2:2 (paragraph 0031]).
As to Claim 12, Lee discloses wherein the process of reducing the liquid intermediate is optional (which reads on the claim) (Example 1, paragraph [0028]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 05, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s principle arguments are:
a) Lee and Ucyildiz do not contemplate the claimed pressure (claim 1).
In response to Applicant’s arguments, please consider the following comments:
a) The Examiner agreed that Lee does not teach the claimed pressure. However, Ucyildiz teaches of a method of leaching nickel by adding sulfuric acid to lateritic nickel ores using an HPAL method under pressure of 3.3-5.5 MPa (33-55 bar; which overlaps the claims) (pg. 476, first full paragraph and pg. 478, Methods).
Conclusion
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 ADAM ARCIERO whose telephone number is (571)270-5116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5 ET.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571)272-1330. 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.
/ADAM A ARCIERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727